Wilson v. State

MICHAEL C. WILSON, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff.

No. 49A02-1401-PC-49

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

October 24, 2014

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:

F. THOMAS SCHORNHORST

Oxford, Mississippi

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Attorney General of Indiana

HENRY A. FLORES

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Lisa F. Borges, Judge

Cause No. 49G04-0704-PC-57737

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ROBB, Judge

Case Summary and Issue

A jury found Michael Wilson guilty of murder in 2008. He was ordered to serve a sixty-year sentence, with fifteen years suspended subject to five years of probation. Wilson sought post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied Wilson's petition for relief. Wilson now appeals, raising the sole issue of whether the post-conviction court erred in finding Wilson was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at his trial. Concluding none of the errors alleged by Wilson amount to ineffective assistance of counsel, alone or cumulatively, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History¹

The relevant facts were set forth by this court in a memorandum decision on direct appeal:

The facts most favorable to the verdict reveal that thirty-two-year-old Wilson and thirty-three-year-old Nupur Srivastava met at a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center in New York in November 2006. After Nupur was discharged from the center, she joined Wilson at his father's home in Indianapolis in January 2007, and later rented an apartment on the north side of town. In early April 2007, while Nupur was visiting her family in Maryland, her parents convinced her she needed to return to the rehabilitation center. Nupur briefly returned to Indianapolis to retrieve her belongings. The day before she was scheduled to leave Indianapolis, Nupur and Wilson were drinking whiskey and arguing on Wilson's father's patio when Wilson splashed Nupur with gasoline and set her on fire.

Nupur ran through Wilson's father's house to the bathroom where she filled up the bathtub and jumped into it to put out the flames. While she was in the bathtub, Wilson called 911 to report a fire. During the phone call, Nupur asked Wilson why he had done that. Wilson responded, "I didn't think it was going to be like that, I swear."

When paramedics arrived at the scene, Nupur walked unassisted out of the garage. Paramedic Jeff Brown ran to Nupur and escorted her to an ambulance. When Brown asked Nupur what had happened, she told the paramedic that Wilson had poured gas on her and set her on fire. Brown placed Nupur in the ambulance and turned to see a naked Wilson standing in the yard. Wilson had burns on his hands and portions of his forearms. Wilson told the paramedic that there had been an accident with the gas grill. On the way to the hospital, Nupur again told Brown as well as paramedic Shawn Grindstaff that she and Wilson were arguing when Wilson threw gasoline on her and lit her on fire. Wilson told another paramedic and a hospital nurse that the fire started when he and Nupur tried to light a grill using gasoline.

The following day, Indianapolis Police Department Sergeant John Breedlove went to the hospital to interview Wilson. Before the interview, Breedlove consulted with hospital staff who advised him that Wilson was taking Percocet for pain. Before questioning Wilson, Sergeant Breedlove read him his Miranda rights and had him sign a waiver of rights form.² Wilson told the sergeant that he understood his rights, and the sergeant began to question him.

During the interview, Wilson asked to make a telephone phone call so that he could talk to someone because of the seriousness of the events. The sergeant told Wilson that he could stop answering questions at any time and allowed Wilson to make a telephone call. Wilson attempted to call his father, who he was unable to reach. After making the phone call, Wilson told the sergeant that the person he wanted to speak to was his father but that he was unable to reach him.

Sergeant Breedlove readvised Wilson of his rights, and Wilson told the sergeant that he understood those rights and was willing to continue answering questions. During the interview, Wilson appeared coherent, understood the questions the sergeant asked him, never became confused, and thought about and provided answers to the questions. Although Wilson delayed answering some of the questions about how Nupur became doused with gasoline and set on fire, Sergeant Breedlove interpreted Wilson's responses to be deceitful rather than confused.

During the interview, Wilson admitted that his previous story about the grill accident was not true. Wilson explained that he told that story because he panicked. According to Wilson, he was holding a gas can while he and Nupur were arguing. Nupur pulled on the can and gas apparently

splashed on her and ignited when one of them lit a cigarette. Wilson explained that when Nupur drank alcohol, "she always [got] very, very argumentative and want[ed] to put [Wilson] down and want[ed] to say things to push buttons." The State subsequently charged Wilson with attempted murder and aggravated battery. Nupur, who had third degree burns on 80% of her body, was placed in a drug-induced coma to allow for treatment and pain management. After she died from multi-organ failure resulting from her burns five weeks later, Wilson was charged with murder.

At trial, additional evidence revealed that in March 2007, while Nupur was staying at a hotel in Indianapolis, she and Wilson got into a physical altercation. Jimmy Barona, the hotel's owner, testified that Nupur's hair was messed up, and she had a black eye and scratches on her face. When Nupur and Barona told Wilson to leave Nupur's hotel room, Wilson pushed Nupur and appeared ready to fight Barona. Barona and a hotel maintenance worker had to physically remove Wilson from the room.

In addition, a former neighbor testified that Wilson and Nupur argued every day. According to the neighbor, one night Wilson banged on Nupur's apartment door for hours demanding to be let into the apartment. The following morning, the neighbor noticed plaster from the ceiling and the walls had been knocked to the floor by Wilson's banging.

Also at trial, ATF Fire Research Engineer Brian Grove testified that he conducted nine tests where gas was splashed on a manikin [sic] wearing jeans and a sweater similar to those that Nupur was wearing. The tests revealed that Nupur was seated when she was doused with approximately one-half cup of gasoline below her waistband and above her knees. The gasoline was then ignited with a flame, not a cigarette, which had to have been placed one to two inches from the gasoline. Two lighters were found on the patio where Nupur was sitting. One of the lighters was found on a table, and the other was found on the ground.

Wilson testified that at the time he gave his statement to Sergeant Breedlove, Wilson was "pretty doped up," and easily confused. He also testified that Nupur set herself on fire and asked him not to tell anyone what she had done. . . .

Wilson v. State, No. 49A05-0806-CR-329, 900 N.E.2d 828 at *1-2 (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 16, 2009) (record citations omitted), corrected on reh'g, trans. denied. Wilson's family retained attorney Marvin Coffey shortly after the charges were filed, and Coffey represented Wilson through trial and sentencing. A jury found Wilson guilty after athree-day trial, and the trial court sentenced him to sixty years, with fifteen years suspended, five of which were to be served on probation.

On direct appeal, Wilson argued the trial court erred in admitting into evidence his statement to police because it was not voluntary and was admitted in violation of his right to counsel. He also argued the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. This court affirmed Wilson's conviction, holding the trial court did not err in admitting his statements, id. at *3-4, and there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, id. at *5.

In 2009, Wilson filed a petition for post-conviction relief that was later amended by counsel. He alleged he was entitled to relief because his trial counsel had been ineffective in numerous respects. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court entered findings of fact and conclusions thereon, denying Wilson's petition for post-conviction relief upon finding his trial counsel was not ineffective. Wilson now appeals the denial of relief.

Discussion and Decision

I. Standard of Review

A. Post-Conviction Relief

The petitioner in a post-conviction proceeding bears the burden of establishing grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(5); Garrett v. State, 992 N.E.2d 710, 718 (Ind. 2013). When appealing from the denial of post-conviction relief, the petitioner is appealing from a negative judgment and bears the burden of showing that the evidence as a whole unerringly and unmistakably leads to aconclusion opposite that reached by the post-conviction court. Wilkes v. State, 984 N.E.2d 1236, 1240 (Ind. 2013). "In other words, the [petitioner] must convince this Court that there is no way within the law that the court below could have reached the decision it did." Id. (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). In reviewing the judgment of the post-conviction court, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the judgment. Walker v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1181, 1185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. The post-conviction court is the sole judge of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, and we accept the court's findings of fact unless they are clearly...