ILNews

Pro se defendant must be advised of rights

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The requirement to advise a defendant of the dangers of self-representation and the benefit of counsel applies equally regardless of whether a pro se defendant is choosing to plead guilty or go to trial, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided today.

The appellate court declined to follow Sedberry v. State, 610 N.E.2d 284, 286 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993), Redington v. State, 678 N.E.2d 114, 118 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), and Greer v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1214, 1217 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), in ruling on David Hopper v. State of Indiana, No. 13A01-1002-PC-41, because they seem to establish two different standards for reviewing a wavier of counsel. Those cases apply a less demanding standard for defendants who choose to plead guilty than those who want to go to trial. The state wanted the judges to follow Sedberry, which held if a defendant waived his right to counsel and pleads guilty, there’s no need to advise the defendant about the dangers of proceeding without counsel because the defendant isn’t going to trial.

“We posit that the direction Sedberry takes us diminishes plea negotiations and guilty plea hearings in importance. We believe both are, indeed, critical stages of the proceeding where representation by a lawyer is crucial,” wrote Judge Michael Barnes.

Hopper pleaded guilty to Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated after waiving his rights to counsel. He read a form provided by the court, which stated if his case was serious enough, the judge would appoint a public defender. The judge also explained if he couldn’t afford an attorney, one would be appointed, but the judge never explained the dangers of waiving representation.

Hopper filed a petition for post-conviction relief several years later when he was represented by counsel, arguing he didn’t knowingly or intelligently waive his right to counsel. He also stated he was a high school drop out and didn’t understand some of the terminology in the form given to him.

“The right to counsel in a criminal case is not dependent upon the ‘seriousness’ of the case,” wrote Judge Barnes. “If this form is still in use, we direct that the references to the ‘seriousness’ of the case be deleted from the form’s discussion of the right to counsel.”

There’s no evidence the form advises defendants on the peril of proceeding without representation, the trial court judge didn’t inform Hopper of those dangers, and there’s no evidence Hopper independently understood the disadvantages of self-representation. Because his decision wasn’t knowingly or intelligently made, there’s no need to decide whether he was prejudiced by a lack of representation, the appellate court concluded. The judges remanded the case for further proceedings.
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT