Dakota A.W. Stinson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jul 12 2019, 7:41 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kay A. Beehler Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Terre Haute, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Jesse R. Drum
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Dakota A.W. Stinson, July 12, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-2241
v. Appeal from the Lawrence
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable John M. Plummer
Appellee-Plaintiff. III, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
47D01-1802-F2-228
Mathias, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2241 | July 12, 2019 Page 1 of 11
[1] Dakota Stinson (“Stinson”) appeals from Lawrence Superior Court’s denial of
his Motion for Discharge, arguing that the State failed to bring him to trial
within the period mandated by Indiana Criminal Rule 4.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On February 9, 2018, Stinson was charged with Level 2 felony burglary and
Level 3 felony robbery. Three days later, on February 12, 2018, the trial court
held Stinson’s initial hearing in conjunction with his co-defendants. The
following exchange occurred at Stinson’s initial hearing:
THE COURT: Do any of the four of you have any questions
about the charges, your rights, or the possible penalties? Mr.
Stinson. Don’t say anything about the facts of the case. I don’t
want you to do anything that would implicate your guilt or
innocence.
THE DEFENDANT: I was going to request a speedy and public
trial (inaudible).
THE COURT: We’ll let the Public Defender’s Office know if I
appoint them. Oh, no. You didn’t ask – yes, you did – for a
public defender. And I’m assuming, the State, there will be,
therefore, no offers to Mr. Stinson since he’s asked for a speedy
trial.
[STATE]: That is right, Your Honor.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2241 | July 12, 2019 Page 2 of 11
THE DEFENDANT: I have three witnesses.
THE COURT: I don’t care if you’ve got 25 witnesses.
THE DEFENDANT: (inaudible).
THE COURT: Tell somebody else about it. So the State has
acknowledged that it will – there will be no offers related to Mr.
Stinson given his request. Now we’re not going to make that
request effective as of today, Mr. Stinson, because you’re going
to need to talk to your attorney about it. And then they can file
something with the Court.
Tr. pp. 4–5.
[4] A public defender, James Spangler (“Spangler”), was appointed to represent
Mr. Stinson the next day, on February 13, 2018. Spangler filed his appearance
on February 22, 2018 and appeared on behalf of Stinson at pre-trial conferences
held on April 4, April 18, May 7, and May 23 of 2018. Stinson, who was
housed at the Lawrence County Jail, was only transported to the April 4
hearing. Spangler stated at the hearings on April 18 and May 23 that Stinson
was not requesting a trial date. Tr. pp. 12,18. At no time during his
representation of Stinson did Spangler mention his client’s request for a speedy
trial to the court.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2241 | July 12, 2019 Page 3 of 11
[5] On May 26, 2018, Stinson filed a letter with the court, informing the court that
Spangler had “resigned from” his case.1 Appellant’s App. p. 24. He also
informed the court that he had learned from his family, not from his counsel,
that several pre-trial hearings had taken place.2 Id. Three days later, on May 29,
2018, the State requested a trial date “no later than August 9, 2018.” Id. at 26.
[6] On June 13, 2018, the trial court held another pre-trial hearing. At this pre-trial
hearing, a different public defender, Kristine Kohlmeier (“Kohlmeier”), attended
the hearing on behalf of the Public Defender’s office. Kohlmeier represented that
Spangler was no longer employed by the Public Defender’s office, and that the
agency was searching for a public defender outside of the agency because of
conflicts and the “high level of the charges.” Tr. p. 22. The court reminded
Kohlmeier, “[t]he clock is ticking against the Defense for Criminal Rule 4
purposes. I want you to know that. That the delay here is certainly not
attributable to the State.” Id. The trial court further admonished her department
to “get counsel on board ASAP, okay?” Id. at 23. Kohlmeier then declined to
schedule a trial date and advised the court that she understood that “all delay
under Criminal Rule 4 from this point forward until another trial date is set is
attributable to the Defense.” Id. at 24. The parties then set another hearing for
1
The court was aware that Spangler moved to Texas on May 30, 2018. Tr. p. 42. However, the CCS does not
show an entry of withdrawal of appearance for Spangler.
2
The record shows that Stinson appeared in person with Spangler for the April 4, 2018 pre-trial conference.
Tr. p. 8.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2241 | July 12, 2019 Page 4 of 11
July 16, 2018, and the trial court, at the request of the State, noted for the record
that Stinson should be transported to court on that date.
[7] On July 5, 2019, the Lawrence County Public Defender Agency appointed Kay
Beehler (“Beehler”) to serve as a Special Public Defender representing Stinson.
On July 9, 2018, Beehler filed her appearance and a Motion to Reduce Bond.
The trial court held a hearing on the Motion to Reduce Bond on July 16, 2018.
The court denied the request to reduce his bond, but the following exchange
occurred between Beehler and the court:
MS. BEEHLER: Your Honor, and I know this from speaking
with Madame Prosecutor here this afternoon. Apparently, Mr.
Stinson has had several settings in this court for which he’s not
been transported. And I don’t know why. It was way before my
time.
THE COURT: Well, he- let me explain here while we have the
tape recorder running. The – due to the number of incarcerated
people in this county, when a court sets a pretrial conference, we
leave it up to the defense attorney to let the Court know whether
they would like to have the Defendant transported. And if the
Defense lawyer does not ask for that, then the Court assumes that
the Defendant is not needed.
MS. BEEHLER: Sure. Sure.
THE COURT: So we let Defense counsel tell us whether or not
the Defendant-
MS. BEEHLER: Okay.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2241 | July 12, 2019 Page 5 of 11
THE COURT: -should be transported.
MS. BEEHLER: Well, apparently, prior counsel did not ensure
that he was brought here.
THE COURT: That has been a problem. I will tell you right now
on the record. It has been a lengthy problem with the Lawrence
County Public Defender Agency. And you can take that up with
Mr. Shircliff as to why. But nonetheless, finish your argument,
please.
Tr. p. 36.
[8] The parties then turned to the court’s calendar. The Court suggested that
Stinson’s trial be combined with a co-defendant’s trial that was set for speedy
trial on August 29, 30, and 31. Beehler objected to a joint trial. The court had a
two-week murder trial beginning on July 23, 2018. Immediately after that trial,
beginning on August 7, 2018, the court was set for a four-and-a-half-week
murder trial. The court then had a mandatory conference in the beginning of
September and was set for another high-level felony trial the following week.
The court also had a second option set for that same week. The court also
offered to bump the second setting on September 26 for this matter because the
other defendant was not in jail; however, Beehler planned to be out of the
country between September 20 and October 4, 2018. At the conclusion of the
hearing, and noting court congestion, the court ultimately set this matter for the
third setting on September 12, 13, and 14 and denied Stinson’s request to
reduce the bond.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2241 | July 12, 2019 Page 6 of 11
[9] On July 19, Stinson, through Beehler, filed a Motion for Discharge pursuant to
Indiana Criminal Rule 4(B) as well as a supporting memorandum. The State
filed its response on July 24, 2018. Stinson filed a rebuttal on July 27, and, on
August 2, the trial court denied Stinson’s request for discharge. Stinson then
requested that the trial court certify the matter for interlocutory appeal, which
the trial court granted after a brief hearing on August 29. Our court agreed to
hear the matter, and the trial court stayed all proceedings during the appeal.
Discussion and Decision
[10] Indiana Criminal Rule 4(B) provides, in relevant part, as follows:
If any defendant held in jail . . . shall move for an early trial, he
shall be discharged if not brought to trial within seventy (70)
calendar days from the date of such motion, except where a
continuance within said period is had on his motion, or the delay
is otherwise caused by his act, or where there was not sufficient
time to try him during such seventy (70) calendar days because of
the congestion of the court calendar.
[11] The broad goal of Criminal Rule 4 is to provide functionality to a defendant’s
fundamental and constitutionally protected right to a speedy trial. Cundiff v.
State, 967 N.E.2d 1026, 1027 (Ind. 2012). “It places an affirmative duty on the
State to bring the defendant to trial, but at the same time is not intended to be a
mechanism for providing defendants a technical means to escape prosecution.”
Austin v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1027 (Ind. 2013). When a defendant requests a
speedy trial pursuant to Criminal Rule 4, the matter:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2241 | July 12, 2019 Page 7 of 11
must be assigned a meaningful trial date within the time
prescribed by the rule, if necessary superseding trial dates
previously designated for civil cases and even criminal cases in
which Criminal Rule 4 deadlines are not imminent. We
recognize, however, that emergencies in either criminal or civil
matters may occasionally interfere with this scheme. Similarly,
there may be major, complex trials that have long been scheduled
or that pose significant extenuating circumstances to litigants and
witnesses, which will, on rare occasions, justify application of the
court congestion or exigent circumstances exceptions.
Id. (quoting Clark v. State, 659 N.E.2d 548, 551–52 (Ind. 1995)). “Crim. Rule
4(b)’s direction to discharge is mandatory and ‘nothing will prevent the rule’s
operation save its own exceptions.’” Paul v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1194, 1197 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2003) (quoting Crosby v. State, 597 N.E.2d 984, 987 (Ind. Ct. App.
1992)). However, courts recognize that a 4(B) motion “does not necessarily
present a bright-line approach whereby all other cases must yield to the
defendant who files a speedy trial motion.” Austin, 997 N.E.2d at 1040.
[12] Once counsel is appointed, a defendant speaks to the court through counsel.
Underwood v. State, 722 N.E.2d 828, 832 (Ind. 2000). In the absence of a proper
request to proceed pro se, requiring a trial court to respond to both defendant
and counsel “would effectively create a hybrid representation to which
Defendant is not entitled.” Id.[13] Stinson argues that he made his request for speedy trial at the initial hearing.
He further argues on appeal that the State did not make any attempt to
“expedite prosecution” until Stinson filed a letter with the court on May 26,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2241 | July 12, 2019 Page 8 of 11
2018, well after the seventy-day deadline had passed. In support, Stinson relies
on Robinson v. State, 918 N.E.2d 692 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). In that case,
Robinson filed a pro se motion for a speedy trial in accordance with Criminal
Rule 4(B); however, he was not tried until eighty-four days after his request for
a speedy trial although he did not make any requests for continuances or cause
other delays. Id. at 694. Ultimately, Robinson was discharged pursuant to
Criminal Rule 4(B).
[14] The State argues that Stinson was represented by counsel and that he spoke to
the court through counsel, making any delay attributable to him. The State
relies on Underwood v. State in support. 722 N.E.2d 828 (Ind. 2000). Underwood
argued that he was entitled to discharge under Crim. R. 4(B) because he was
not tried within the appropriate time frame because his counsel requested a
continuance to which Underwood objected. Id. at 832. On review, our supreme
court noted that the trial court was under no obligation to respond to
Underwood’s objection to his own counsel’s request for continuance as this
would “effectively create a hybrid representation to which Defendant is not
entitled.” Id.
[15] Here, the trial court did not accept Stinson’s initial pro se request for a speedy
trial until after he had the opportunity to discuss with counsel. Once counsel
was appointed, he appeared on Stinson’s behalf, made several requests to
continue, and made no further mention of a request for speedy trial. As such,
the delay, assuming we were to accept the request made at the initial hearing,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2241 | July 12, 2019 Page 9 of 11
cannot be attributable to the State. Even if we were to accept this request on
appeal, Stinson, through counsel, then made several requests for continuances
in the following months.
[16] Analyzing Stinson’s second pro se request for a speedy trial, even if we were to
require the trial court accept it because the public defender agency was
searching for new counsel for him, any further delay again is not attributable to
the State. Three days after Stinson once again told the court pro se he wanted a
speedy trial, the State filed a request for a trial date “no later than August 9,
2018.” Appellant’s App. p. 26. At the next hearing on June 13, 2018, the trial
court made an attempt to schedule a trial date pursuant to the State’s request,
and the public defender, who had not filed an appearance on Stinson’s behalf
but was covering the hearing, declined to schedule a trial date and accepted
responsibility for any delay on behalf of the defense from that point forward.
[17] While Stinson made two pro se attempts to request a speedy trial, once at the
initial hearing and the other in his May 26 letter once Spangler resigned, he is
bound by the actions of his attorneys. We are dismayed by the delays incurred
due to a lack of attention to the matter by both the public defender’s office and
the trial court. However, as the delay is attributable to Stinson through the
action and inaction of counsel, his remedy, if any, is not through the workings
of Criminal Rule 4(B).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2241 | July 12, 2019 Page 10 of 11
Conclusion
[18] Because any delay in this matter is attributable to the defense, and not to the
State, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Stinson’s request for discharge
pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(B).
Vaidik, C.J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2241 | July 12, 2019 Page 11 of 11