Bridges v. State

1

John Arthur Bridges, Jr., Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

No. 22A-PC-2858

Court of Appeals of Indiana

August 7, 2023

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.

Appeal from the Allen Superior Court The Honorable Steven O Godfrey, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D06-1702-PC-16

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Russell W. Brown, Jr. The Region Lawyers, Inc. Merrillville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Justin F. Roebel Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

MEMORANDUM DECISION

BAILEY, JUDGE

Case Summary

[¶1] John A. Bridges, Jr. ("Bridges") appeals the post-conviction court's denial, following a bench trial, of his amended petition for post-conviction relief ("PCR"). We affirm.

Issues

[¶2] Bridges raises the following issues: I. Whether the post-conviction court clearly erred when it denied Bridges' claims that his trial counsel was ineffective.

II. Whether the post-conviction court clearly erred when it denied Bridges' claims that his appellate counsel was ineffective.

III. Whether the trial court clearly erred when it denied Bridges' claim that the State suppressed exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland.

IV. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Bridges' request to discover a confidential informant's entire police file.

Facts and Procedural History

[¶3] Following a bench trial on June 16-17, 2014, Bridges was found guilty of dealing in cocaine, as a Level 2 felony;^[1] dealing in a narcotic drug, as a Level 4 felony;^[2] dealing in a narcotic drug, as a Level 5 felony;^[3] dealing in a narcotic drug, as a Level 5 felony;^[4] and dealing in marijuana, hash oil or hashish, as a Level 6 felony.^[5] On July 2, 2015, he was sentenced to twenty-five years in the Department of Correction with twenty years executed and five years suspended. On August 5 2015, Bridges appealed, alleging insufficient evidence to support his convictions, and a panel of this Court affirmed his convictions. Bridges v. State, No. 02A04-1507-CR-1046, 2016 WL 1583766 (Ind.Ct.App. April 20, 2016), trans. denied.

[¶4] On direct appeal, this Court summarized the facts supporting the convictions as follows:

On January 20, 2015, Emily Begnene made a controlled buy of heroin. She was acting as a confidential informant and was supervised by Detective Shane Heath of the Fort Wayne Police Department's Vice and Narcotics Division. Police drove Begnene to 3025 Plaza, Allen County. Begnene met Bridges and purchased over a gram of heroin from him. Bridges' girlfriend, Yolanda McGee, was present during the sale. The heroin purchased was a brown powdery substance.

On January 30, 2015, Begnene made a second controlled buy of heroin, again supervised by Detective Heath. Police drove Begnene to meet Bridges at 814 Lake Avenue, Apartment 3, Allen County, where Bridges and McGee resided. McGee was also present during this controlled buy. The heroin purchased was a grayish-blue substance. After this buy, police brought Begnene back to the station, where she identified Bridges in a photo array as the person from whom she had purchased heroin on both occasions.

Based on the controlled buys, Detective Heath obtained a search warrant to search Bridges' apartment at 814 Lake Avenue.

Bridges and McGee lived at the apartment but were not listed on the lease. The legal tenant was Christina Sims, who allowed Bridges to live at the apartment in exchange for drugs and rent payment.

On February 3, 2015, Fort Wayne police executed the search warrant. After police breached the door, Bridges and McGee exited the apartment. Bridges was wearing only boxer shorts, so he asked Detective Heath to bring him his pants from a chair in the living room. Detective Heath found Bridges' wallet, identification, and $1,300.00 in cash in the pants' pocket. On the same chair, police discovered a size 5X hoodie jacket, which was proportional to the size of Bridges' pants. Police found in the pocket of the jacket a baggie containing substances determined to be cocaine and heroin. The drugs were packaged in a manner common for distribution.

The search also uncovered other incriminating items. A container of plastic baggies and a scale that tested positive for cocaine residue were found in a desk drawer.[] Three clear plastic baggies were found with the corners removed. Detectives found a total of 90.8 grams of marijuana in a baggie in the bathroom toilet bowl and in a jar beside the chair where the other drugs and clothing were found. A loaded firearm was found under the mattress in the bedroom where Bridges had been sleeping. Detective Jamie Masters found a smartphone with a telephone number corresponding to the number Begnene had called to set up both controlled buys from Bridges.

Id. at *1.

[¶5] On February 6, 2017, Bridges filed a pro se petition for PCR. Bridges subsequently obtained counsel, who filed amended PCR petitions on August 18, 2020, and August 25, 2021. Bridges also filed a motion to compel discovery in which he sought "the entire file on CI 1988," i.e., Begnene. App. At 80. Following a hearing on the motion, the court denied it. The court conducted evidentiary hearings on the issues raised in Bridges' PCR action on April 19, 2021, June 14, 2021, and March 28, 2022.

[¶6] On November 4, 2022, the post-conviction court issued its written order in which it made findings of fact and conclusions thereon. In addition to the facts summarized by this Court in the direct appeal, the post-conviction court's factual findings included the following:

6. At trial, the CI (Begnene) identified Mr. Bridges as the person who twice sold heroin to her in controlled buys. Before trial, the CI had identified 814 Lake Avenue, Apartment 3, as the location of the second controlled buy, and this information was used to obtain the search warrant that led to the discovery of heroin, cocaine, and cash in Mr. Bridges'[] jacket.

7. Detective Heath had repeatedly seen a [red] Nissan automobile, said by the CI to be driven by the drug dealer known to her as "B.I.," at the locations of the controlled drug buys. Tr. [at] 143-144.^[6] [Detective] Heath accordingly asked Detective Kirby to stop the car and identify the driver because the driver was suspected of drug dealing based on the controlled buys; Kirby proceeded to do so, and Mr. Bridges was identified as the driver. [Bridges' trial a]ttorney, [Bart] Arnold, unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence of the pretrial identification of Mr. Bridges as the driver. On appeal, [Bridges'] attorney, [Mark] Thoma[,] did not argue that this evidence should not have been admitted.

8. Evidence that Mr. Bridges had sold drugs on other occasions, and had paid rent in the form of drugs, was admitted at trial. Attorney Arnold did not object to this evidence. Additional evidence of Mr. Bridges'[] involvement with drugs, not alleged to have been objectionable, was Mr. Bridges'[] statement when interviewed that he could get a big heroin dealer and could buy an ounce of heroin right then.

9. The CI disclosed to Detective Heath the cell phone number she had called to set up the drug deals. Detective Heath obtained Mr. Bridges'[] cell phone before interviewing him. Mr. Bridges disclosed his cell phone number during routine booking.^[7] Detective Heath testified that Mr. Bridges'[] cell phone number was the same as that called by the CI. Attorney Arnold objected to the evidence of Mr. Bridges'[] disclosure of the number, but not to the remaining evidence regarding the number.

10. The search warrant affidavit states that the CI was seen entering 814 Lake Avenue through the rear door, and that "[t]he entrance for apartment #3 is the only door at the rear of the residence." Petitioner's Exhibit A at 1, 3. It says nothing about whether apartment 3 is the only apartment that can be entered by way of that door, but it goes on to specify how, after entering through that door, apartment 3 can be identified:

Once inside of the back door, the stairs go straight up. Upon reaching the second level, apartment #3 is straight ahead. It is marked with a #3.

Id. The affidavit does not state that the CI was a paid informant and does not disclose that the CI had "shorted" Detective Heath $100 on the first controlled buy in order to pay off a drug debt, both of which are true. PCR Tr. [at] 64-79. Attorney Arnold did not object to the admission of the evidence obtained by means of the search warrant.

11. At the final pretrial hearing on May 20, 2015, Mr. Bridges expressed dissatisfaction with attorney Arnold and inquired about the possibility of representing himself at trial. The Court acknowledged Mr. Bridges'[] right to represent himself, but declined to continue the trial set for June 16 and 17 in order to allow Mr. Bridges to prepare to represent himself. Then, claiming that he had no other choice, Mr. Bridges agreed to proceed to trial represented by attorney Arnold. Attorney Thoma did not argue on appeal that Mr. Bridges'[] right to represent himself had been violated.

12. After Mr. Bridges'[] sentencing[,] the prosecutor learned, and informed attorney Arnold [in November of 2015] that the CI had been paid for testifying. Attorney Arnold testified that he had no reason to question the CI's veracity based on being paid; that he did not think the courts or juries seemed to care that CIs were paid; and that being paid to testify was no different from being paid to do a controlled buy "if they tell you[,]" although he did not "like that we did not know that." [PCR Tr.] at 58. ...