May, J.
Harold Warren appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for postconviction relief. He argues his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was infringed because his trial counsel failed to thoroughly investigate and present evidence implicating alternative suspects. We affirm.
On direct appeal, our Indiana Supreme Court summarized the evidence presented to the jury during Warren’s trial:
[T]he victim, Jack Dorfman, the proprietor of a small Indianapolis store that purchased and sold jewelry and precious metals and cashed checks, was killed by a single .22 caliber gunshot wound to the head, probably fired from a revolver. Three days after the murder, Paul Fancher had purchased a .22 caliber revolver from the defendant’s brother, Ron Warren, who had obtained it from one of his brothers. After learning that the defendant had been arrested for the murder, Fancher turned the gun over to police. On the day before the murder, the defendant had been in Dorfman’s store to sell some rings. After Dorfman declined and directed that the defendant be escorted out of the shop, the defendant told him: “I’ll be back.” The defendant admitted to police that he was in Dorfman’s store on the day of the murder. After the murder, the defendant’s fingerprints were discovered on a pawn ticket found on the counter of the shop, and yet the defendant told police that he never could have left his thumbprint on a pawn card because he had never pawned anything. On the day of the murder, the defendant used Dorfman’s credit cards at a liquor store, a Meijer store, a K-Mart store, and a Radio Shack store.
Warren v. State, 757 N.E.2d 995, 999 (Ind. 2001). The Supreme Court affirmed Warren’s convictions. Id. at 1001.
Warren filed a petition for postconviction relief on July 13, 2017. The petition alleged Warren’s trial counsel, Epstein, provided constitutionally ineffective assistance because he “failed to present crucial defense evidence, failed to hire or consult expert witnesses, and failed to interview and subpoena key defense witnesses.”
…
Warren argues his trial counsel, Epstein, was ineffective because Epstein did not thoroughly investigate Roberson as an alternative suspect.
…
Warren argues Epstein was delinquent in not pursuing discovery in order to obtain evidence of Roberson’s bad character and should have further investigated the theory that Roberson murdered Dorfman. Even though Epstein moved to compel the State to disclose Roberson’s criminal history and related information, Epstein filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude Roberson’s testimony before receiving the requested discovery. The requested
…
Cook argues the State failed to prove threat or coercion regarding a specific official proceeding or investigation because the content of the communication between Collins and discovery would have shown that Roberson was charged with Class D felony theft in 1992 and had two misdemeanor theft convictions. The police spoke with Roberson after Dorfman’s murder, and Warren contends that he was arrested as a result of information Roberson gave the police. Cook is unclear. She asserts the essence of the communication between them was that they should solve any differences they had as neighbors and without the need for the intervention of others.
…
Additionally, Warren argues Epstein should have interviewed Larry or subpoenaed him to be a witness. Larry testified at the postconviction relief hearing that he lived with Roberson at the time of Dorfman’s murder, that Roberson’s whereabouts at the time of the murder were unknown, that she had her truck painted shortly after the murder, that she came into a large amount of cash after the murder, and that they left for Florida after the murder. Larry also testified at the postconviction relief hearing that he believed Roberson had multiple conversations with law enforcement concerning the Dorfman murder and that she was trying to deflect blame from herself to Warren. Therefore, Warren argues Epstein was ineffective because he did not adequately question Larry in order to find out what Larry knew about the circumstances surrounding the crime.
…
Had Epstein interviewed Larry, he would have discovered substantial information that casts suspicion on Roberson. Epstein then could have deposed, interviewed, or subpoenaed Roberson. He could have asked her where she was the morning of the murder, how many conversations she had with law enforcement about the murder, how she was able to purchase the recreational vehicle, why she decided to take a trip to Florida with Larry shortly after the murder, whether she repainted her truck grey, and if so, why she repainted her truck. Roberson might have invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, denied Larry’s allegations, or provided innocent explanations, but Epstein did not find out. Therefore, we agree with Warren that Epstein’s performance was deficient regarding his investigation of Roberson.
…
Warren also contends Epstein was ineffective because he failed to utilize exculpatory fingerprint evidence. Specifically, Warren alleges “Mr. Epstein failed to present evidence that fingerprints belonging to Aaron Gill, Gallery No. 470350, were found on cellophane in the backroom of Mr. Dorfman’s shop near his body. Mr. Epstein was aware of this evidence but inexplicably failed to use it.”
…
…[W]e hold the possible presence of someone other than Warren at the crime scene is a lead worth investigating because it suggests a possible alternative perpetrator.
…
Even though Warren’s trial counsel’s performance was deficient, he has failed to show a reasonable likelihood the result of his trial would have been different.
…
Conclusion
Warren’s trial counsel acknowledges he did not adequately investigate a potential alternative suspect or follow-up on a lead that another individual’s fingerprints were present at the scene of Dorfman’s murder. However, despite trial counsel’s deficient performance, we cannot say there was a reasonable probability the outcome of Warren’s trial would have been different because of the overwhelming evidence of Warren’s guilt presented at trial. We accordingly affirm.
Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.