….
Rondeau’s final contention concerning the court’s conduct of the post-conviction proceeding is that the court abused its discretion when it denied his requests for the issuance of subpoenas to certain potential witnesses.
Our Post-Conviction Rules provide, in relevant part:
If the pro se petitioner requests issuance of subpoenas for witnesses at an evidentiary hearing, the petitioner shall specifically state by affidavit the reason the witness’ testimony is required and the substance of the witness’ expected testimony. If the court finds the witness’ testimony would be relevant and probative, the court shall order that the subpoena be issued. If the court finds the proposed witness’ testimony is not relevant and probative, it shall enter a finding on the record and refuse to issue the subpoena.
Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(9)(b).
Here, Rondeau, proceeding pro se, requested subpoenas for numerous witnesses. The post-conviction court granted some of the requests, but denied others. The court denied requests to issue subpoenas for … several individuals who Rondeau claimed would have testified concerning the character of his victim … ; the two physicians who treated Rondeau for injuries after his arrest; former Prosecutor Brizzi; a crime scene specialist … ; and two forensic scientists…. Rondeau claims that the post-conviction court’s refusal was an abuse of discretion, arguing that (1) with respect to Rondeau’s first set of requests for subpoenas, the court failed to comply with Post-Conviction Rule 1(9)(b)’s provision that a post-conviction court “enter a finding on the record” when it does not find that a witness’s testimony would be relevant and probative; and (2) the court’s denial of the subpoenas was improper because the testimony of each witness would be relevant and probative at the post-conviction stage.
Rondeau is correct that the Post-Conviction Rules require a post-conviction court to enter a finding when denying a pro se petitioner’s request for a subpoena, and it appears that the court here did not enter such a finding on Rondeau’s first request. As with other procedural matters, Rondeau does not articulate how the court’s purported error is a basis for reversal of the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. And this Court has previously found no reversible error when a post-conviction court has denied a pro se petitioner’s request for a subpoena without entering specific findings but “the issues are sufficiently presented for review and addressed by the parties.” [Citation omitted.]
Moreover, we cannot conclude that the post-conviction court abused its discretion when it denied Rondeau’s various requests for subpoenas. Postconviction proceedings are not designed to permit attacks on witness credibility, but rather to address issues demonstrably unavailable at trial and on direct appeal. [Citation omitted.]
Rondeau’s requested subpoenas, though framed as relevant to his claim that trial counsel was ineffective, were either not specific enough to establish the relevance of the proposed witness’s testimony to the question of ineffectiveness, or were relevant only to matters available at trial or direct appeal. Rondeau’s requests for subpoenas for testimony from individuals familiar with him and Stegbauer provided no information concerning what testimony these witnesses might provide. Rondeau’s requests to subpoena Detective Bain pointed to inconsistencies in trial testimony of a lead detective compared to information in a probable cause affidavit, matters available for inquiry at trial. Rondeau’s requests for testimony from forensic scientists and a crime scene specialist concerning the State’s decisions on what items to submit for laboratory testing bore no apparent connection to the question of trial counsel’s preparation and investigation. Rondeau’s request for a subpoena to former Prosecutor Brizzi demonstrated no connection to any question related to ineffectiveness of counsel, and instead sought testimony concerning an isolated statement to the press. Finally, Rondeau’s requests for subpoenas of the physicians who treated his injuries at the time of his arrest pertained to matters raised or best raised at trial: the specific nature and number of his injuries.
Because none of these matters properly pertained to Rondeau’s claimed bases for post-conviction relief, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the issuance of Rondeau’s requested subpoenas.
….
Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Crone, J., concur.