Jesse L. Rose, Appellant-Defendant,
State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
APPELLANT PRO SE Jesse L. Rose Carlisle, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General
of Indiana Chandra K. Hein Deputy Attorney General
from the Cass Superior Court The Honorable Rick Maughmer,
Judge Trial Court Cause No. 09D02-1404-PC-5
Jesse L. Rose, pro se, appeals the
post-conviction court's denial of his petition for
post-conviction relief. He argues the post-conviction court
did not hold a procedurally fair hearing and did not enter
adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law. We affirm.
and Procedural History
In 2012, Rose was convicted of four counts of Class A felony
child molest. We affirmed that conviction in a
memorandum opinion. See Rose v. State,
09A05-1205-CR-251, 984 N.E.2d 256 (Ind.Ct.App. Feb. 15,
2013), trans. denied.
On April 30, 2014, Rose filed a petition for post-conviction
relief ("PCR"). In his petition, he alleged
ineffective assistance of trial counsel, insufficient
evidence to support his conviction, and inappropriate
sentence. A public defender was appointed, but the public
defender's office subsequently withdrew its appearance
from the case. Rose requested and was granted a subpoena for
trial court counsel Michael Boonstra. On July 11, 2017, the
PCR court held a hearing on the petition, wherein Rose
proceeded pro se.
When asked to present his case, Rose asked if Boonstra would
"be here?" (Tr. Vol. II at 8.) The PCR court
assured Rose that Boonstra had been subpoenaed and had
"better be here. But as a witness, not as your
attorney." (Id.) It appears, from the
transcript and the parties' briefs, Boonstra must not
have been in the courtroom during this exchange but arrived
later. Rose proceeded to present various documents as
evidence and then testified for himself.
When asked if he had additional witnesses, Rose responded,
"I don't have no witnesses. I just got really
questions from, from my attorney, ex-attorney whatever."
(Id. at 40.) However, when then asked, "Do you
have other witnesses that you would like to call?[, ]"
(id.) Rose did not call Boonstra. The PCR court
asked him again, "So, do you want to call anybody
else?" (Id.) Rose responded, "Nope. I
really don't have nobody else." (Id.)
The PCR court then allowed both Rose and the State to present
closing arguments. As the PCR court was concluding the
proceedings, the following exchange occurred:
THE COURT: Okay. All right. All parties rest. The Court has
the case. I will make a decision within 90 days --
MR. ROSE: Hang on. Wait.
THE COURT: -- I think is [sic] the time limit of [sic] today.
MR. ROSE: I thought he, I thought he was going to be up here.
THE COURT: Excuse me?
MR. ROSE: I got questions that I wanted to question him.
THE COURT: I asked you several times if you had witnesses.
MR. ROSE: Yeah. Yeah. That's what I was meaning by him. I
wanted, I wanted to question him.
THE COURT: The evidence is closed, Jessie [sic]. I was very
polite to you --
MR. ROSE: I didn't, I didn't, I didn't, I
didn't under, see I got all my stuff right here.
That's what I, that's what I was waiting on.
That's why I said, well that's Boonstra. I didn't
know (indiscernible). He's back there.
THE COURT: He's been here the whole time.
MR. LUPKE: Mr. Rose just indicated he knew Mr. Boonstra was
here and that --
MR. ROSE: Right. I'm saying --
MR. LUPKE: -- he indicated he knew he was here.
* * * * *
MR. ROSE: I needed to ask, I needed to ask all of my
THE COURT: Jessie [sic], I gave you a chance to ...