Obed Nyarenchi v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 9, 2018
• Docket: 18A-PC-409
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 09 2018, 6:27 am

regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Jeffrey A. Baldwin Stephen R. Creason Tyler D. Helmond Chief Counsel for Appeals and Voyles Vaiana Lukemeyer Baldwin Deputy Attorney General & Webb F. Aaron Negangard Indianapolis, Indiana Chief Deputy Attorney General Justin F. Roebel Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Obed Nyarenchi, October 9, 2018 Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-PC-409 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Lisa Borges, Judge Appellee-Respondent Trial Court Cause No. 49G04-1501-PC-2906

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

[1] Obed Nyarenchi appeals the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief that

he filed after a jury found him guilty of attempted murder and burglary for

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-409 | October 9, 2018 Page 1 of 2 breaking into a house in Speedway and attacking another man with a hatchet

and a hammer. His trial attorneys asserted but then withdrew a defense of

mental disease or defect. See Ind. Code § 35-41-3-6(a) (“A person is not

responsible for having engaged in prohibited conduct if, as a result of mental

disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct

at the time of the offense.”). Nyarenchi contends that the attorneys should have

done more to develop that defense and then presented it at trial, and he asserts

that their failure to do so constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. To

prevail on his ineffective-assistance claim, Nyarenchi had to show not only that

the failure to develop and present a mental-disease-or-defect defense amounted

to “deficient performance” but also that he was prejudiced by that failure, i.e.,

that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have found him not

guilty if his attorneys had developed and presented the defense. See Woods v.

State, 701 N.E.2d 1208 (Ind. 1998), reh’g denied. On appeal, Nyarenchi states

that he “has met this burden.” Appellant’s Br. p. 12. But that is the extent of

his argument. He does not direct us to a single piece of evidence that would

have supported a mental-disease-or-defect defense. In fact, his three-sentence

argument on this issue does not include any citations to the record, in violation

of Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (“Each contention must be supported by

citations to . . . the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on[.]”).

As such, he has not shown that the trial court erred by denying his petition.

[2] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-409 | October 9, 2018 Page 2 of 2