Ian Clark Files Case With Indiana Court of Appeals
Ian J. Clark
WARSAW — Earlier this year Ian J. Clark, 41, was denied his petition for post-conviction relief in Kosciusko Circuit Court. He is now awaiting a hearing with the Indiana Court of Appeals where he is seeking the court to reverse the denial of post-conviction relief and remand the case for a new trial on a murder conviction.
Clark was sentenced in April 2008 to life without parole in the death of a 2-year-old in May 25, 2007. He has been incarcerated at the Indiana State Prison, Michigan City, since his conviction.
The new appeal focuses on whether Clark was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel and whether Clark was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel. The state has filed a response brief.
Kathleen Cleary, deputy public defender with the office of the Public Defender of Indiana, Indianapolis, filed a 27 page brief with the court, which includes statement of the case and facts relevant to the issues. Several arguments are included in the brief. The first argument is: whether trial counsel was ineffective; late amendment; that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to withdraw an insanity defense until mid-trial; trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to misconduct during the state’s closing argument; and trial counsel’s multiple deficiencies prejudiced Clark. The second argument is: Clark was denied Sixth and 14th amendment rights to the effective assistance of appellate counsel where counsel failed to present meritorious issues for review.
Following Clark’s conviction and sentencing in Kosciusko Circuit Court, he filed an appeal directly to the Indiana State Supreme Court. That court upheld the trial courts conviction and sentencing Oct. 15, 2009. A request for post-conviction relief, was heard in Kosciusko Circuit Court Jan. 16, 2016, and a denial ruling April 6.
The post-conviction relief focused on:
Clark being denied his constitutionally protected right to the effective assistance of appellate counsel.
Appellate counsel was deficient and Clark was prejudiced as a result of the following acts of omissions: failing to present an issue the trial court erred by permitting the state to amend the murder charge mid-trial; that he refused a pre-trial plea offer for a fixed term; only three instances were noted in the use of the term of evil when there was significantly more. (It was noted during Friday’s hearing the amendment was to correct a grammatical error in the original filing of the murder charge.)
Trial counsel failed to withdraw the insanity defense until the third day, allowing the jury to receive irrelevant and prejudicial information about the insanity defense.
The trial counsel failed to object to prosecutorial misconduct during its closing argument when the state presented Clark started drinking to cover his act.
The parties involved at the time of the trial were R. Steven Hearn, county prosecutor; Circuit Court Judge Rex Reed and Byron Beery, attorney for Clark.
Reed’s conclusion of law found Clark failed to prove he was denied effective assistance of either trial counsel or appellate counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; failed to prove that either his trial or appellate counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness based on prevailing professional norms; and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different.
Related:
