ILNews

Judge: Man did not knowingly waive right to counsel

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana Court of Appeals judge raised six points in a dissent Monday as to why he disagreed with his colleagues’ decision to affirm the revocation of a man’s probation based on the conclusion that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel.

In Vincent M. Butler, Jr. v. State of Indiana, No. 84A01-1008-CR-414, Judges Nancy Vaidik and Paul Mathias found because Vincent Butler admitted he violated his probation, the trial court wasn’t required to warn him of the dangers of self-representation in order to establish a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his right to counsel. They found the record showed the trial court adequately advised Butler of his right to counsel and he knowingly waived that right.

Butler pleaded guilty to five counts of Class D felony theft and was sentenced to one year executed and four years suspended to probation. Because of credit time served, he was immediately placed on probation. Three months later, the state filed a petition to revoke his probation for several reasons, including he tested positive for drugs and alcohol.

At his hearing, the trial judge told Butler he could have a lawyer represent him and one would be appointed if he couldn’t afford it. Butler declined an attorney and said he understood he had a right to a lawyer. He then admitted to violating the terms of his probation after the judge asked whether he admitted or denied violating probation. The trial court found he admitted violating probation and at a later hearing revoked his probation and ordered him to serve the remaining four years of his sentence in the Department of Correction.

The majority relied on Greer v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1214, 1217 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), to uphold the lower court’s decision, although Judge Vaidik did point out in a footnote that their reliance on the case is called into question by the Indiana Supreme Court decision in Hopper v. State, 934 N.E.2d 1086, in which the justices recently granted a petition for rehearing on.

The judges also pointed out Butler’s extensive criminal history and experience with the criminal justice system. He has had his probation revoked multiple times, and the fact he did ask for and receive appellate counsel shows that he knew how to exercise his right to an attorney when he so desired, wrote Judge Vaidik.

Judge Kirsch dissented on these two points. He found this case not similar to Greer in that the defendant in that case voluntarily admitted that he planned on pleading guilty while the trial court was advising him of his right to counsel, whereas in the instant case, Butler didn’t admit to the violation until questioned by the judge.

He also disagreed with the majority regarding Butler’s criminal history being used to support his wavier of counsel was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. There’s no evidence that career criminals generally or Butler specifically possess a specialized legal knowledge rendering them capable of making a voluntary waiver of their rights in the absence of a full and adequate disclosure of the importance of those rights, wrote Judge Kirsch.

“Indeed, the conclusion could be easily drawn that an extensive criminal history is more likely reflective of the lack of critical thinking skills, not their presence,” he wrote.

He also dissented because he believed the Supreme Court abrogated Greer in Hopper,  the trial judge never determined Butler’s competency, he wasn’t made aware of the perils of self-representation, and the record is unclear as to the extent of which of his admissions was qualified and equivocal.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT