Frentz v. Brown

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his murder conviction on ground that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to assert insanity defense. While trial counsel argued at trial that defendant lacked required mental state when defendant shot his housemate at time when defendant was in process of quitting his extensive drinking and was suffering withdrawal symptoms that included medication and hallucinations, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying habeas petition, even though defendant presented expert at hearing on his petition for post-conviction relief, who stated that defendant was not of sound mind at time of murder, where Dist. Ct. could discount said defendant’s expert after finding that said opinion was based on incomplete information. Moreover, defendant’s expert did not establish that trial counsel had reason to believe that defendant met insanity standard under Indiana law at time of trial, and trial counsel’s decision not to present insanity defense was within spectrum of permissible trial strategy, where: (1) expert hired by trial counsel could not say that defendant was suffering from hallucinations at time of murder; and (2) defendant changed his story several times about said murder, including giving inconsistent declarations as to whether he shot victim, which suggested that defendant was lucid at all times and was attempting to hide his own actions.