When people think of the post-conviction relief process, reversing wrongful convictions and exonerating innocent people most often come to mind. This is understandable; these are obvious miscarriages of justice.

But they are not the only miscarriages of justice. Any denial of a fair trial, regardless of the guilt of the defendant, is a miscarriage of justice. After all, justice is not simply meting out punishment for wrongdoing; justice also requires the punishment be proportional – to not only the offense but the offender.

Consequently, the post-conviction process is not just for the innocent defendant but for the guilty offender alike. Many are familiar with the process of innocent people fighting for their freedom. But the case of Donnell Wilson provides a good example of one person’s journey through the Indiana post-conviction process, where the injustice is not the absence of wrongdoing but the lack of proportionality.

Like many post-conviction cases, Donnell’s story cannot be told in only a few hundred words. So I plan to tell the story of his case through a series of blog posts. The post-conviction process can be difficult to understand. Many people assume it is merely a second direct appeal. Donnell’s case offers an opportunity to explain the post-conviction process by examining one case in particular as it winds its way through the process.

I have not represented Donnell at any point and only learned of his case when Joel, through his work at the Indiana Public Defender Council filed an amicus brief on Donnell’s behalf. Joel focuses much of his work on juvenile offenders, and Donnell was only a child when this case began.

The information about Donnell’s case comes solely from court filings, appellate decisions, and my own experience handling post-conviction cases.

The Crimes

In 2013, Donnell Wilson was sixteen years old and living in Gary, Indiana. The city of Gary was founded in the early 1900s as a steel town. When the steel industry underwent a decline in the late 1900s, Gary experienced a surge in crime, particularly in homicides. In the early 1990s, Gary became known as the “murder capital of the world.” By 2013, Gary was no longer the murder capital of the world. But high crime rates and gang involvement still plagued the city.

As I will discuss in a later post, Donnell was raised in the Glen Park neighborhood, next to a neighborhood where Paula Cooper, another juvenile offender, had been raised decades earlier. Paula’s story is a sad one. But her life and death became the subject of a wonderful book written about mercy and forgiveness. I shared a review of the book here. The similarities I saw in Donnell’s story is what prompted me to write this series.

Donnell was affiliated with several local gangs at the time. In March 2013, he and a group of friends were walking home one day when they encountered a rival gang member. Donnell and his friend, Jonte Crawford, robbed the rival at gunpoint of his cell phone and headphones.

Later in the walk home, Donnell and the group encountered two more rival gang members. An argument ensued, and Donnell shot one rival in the head, killing him. Jonte shot the other rival as he was fleeing, killing him as well. Jonte was a year older than Donnell.

The State treated both boys as adults. The State charged Donnell with two counts of murder, Class B felony robbery, and Class D felony conspiracy to commit criminal gang activity. The State also asked that Donnell’s sentence be enhanced under Indiana’s criminal gang enhancement. As for Jonte, he was charged with two counts of murder, Class B felony armed robbery, and Class D felony conspiracy to commit criminal gang activity.

The Trial

The vast majority of criminal cases (over 90%) are resolved through a guilty plea. Jonte, Donnell’s co-defendant, agreed to plead guilty to one count of murder and the robbery count, in exchange for dismissal of the second murder count and the conspiracy count. The trial court sentenced Jonte to a total of 61 years. Jonte is not set to be released from prison until 2042.

Donnell, however, elected to stand trial. During his trial, the State presented evidence of Donnell’s Twitter posts that showed his disputes with rival gangs. The court allowed the jury to hear the evidence, despite Donnell’s objection. The jury found Donnell guilty as charged. Just as the trial moved into the second phase, where the jury would decide whether the criminal gang sentencing enhancement should apply, Donnell argued with people sitting in the gallery. This caused a disruption, and he was removed from the courtroom. The jury found the enhancement should apply to Donnell’s sentence.

At Donnell’s sentencing hearing, Donnell’s attorney declined to call any witnesses or present any evidence on Donnell’s behalf. Moreover, Donnell’s attorney made only brief comments on his behalf. Consider the perspective of the trial judge at this point. Before you sits a young man who, due to his affiliation with a gang, robs one person and kills another. At his trial, he is removed for disrupting the proceedings. At sentencing, as the judge you expect to hear evidence about why all this occurred. Instead, no explanation is given. Despite his youth, Donnell likely appeared as if he had no remorse and no explanation for his actions. The court’s sentence certainly reflected that sentiment: Donnell received 183 years, a de facto life sentence.

The Direct Appeal

Many people think the direct appeal is the defendant’s opportunity to relitigate the case. Yet during the direct appeal, the focus is on errors that were made in the trial court proceedings. The defendant can only raise issues that are in the “four corners” of the record, meaning issues that were known, available, and (in most cases) raised below. Common claims raised on direct appeal include challenges to evidence that should (or should not) have been admitted, evidence that should have been suppressed, the lack of sufficient evidence to support a conviction, and claims as to the propriety of the sentences imposed.

Donnell appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals, raising three issues: (1) whether the Twitter posts showing his gang affiliation should not have been admitted into evidence because the State failed to show Donnell was the one who posted them; (2) whether Donnell was placed in double jeopardy by being punished for his gang activity through both the conspiracy count and the sentencing enhancement; and (3) whether the court erred in removing Donnell from the courtroom after his outburst. These issues were known and available on direct appeal, as they were contained in the “four corners” of the record on appeal.

What issue was noticeably missing? Any argument about the propriety of Donnell’s de facto life sentence.

The Court of Appeals held that no error occurred in admitting the Twitter posts or in removing Donnell from the courtroom. The Court of Appeals held, however, that the conspiracy conviction must be vacated. This had no real impact on Donnell’s sentence: it reduced his sentence to 181 years, still a life sentence. The Supreme Court of Indiana declined Donnell’s request to review his case.

Having completed the direct appeal process, Donnell’s next step was to pursue post-conviction relief. This will be the subject of my second post in this series.