Timothy Allen v. State of Indiana

FILED
Oct 17 2017, 7:27 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kimberly A. Jackson Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Tyler Banks
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Timothy Allen, October 17, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
24A05-1706-CR-1303
v. Appeal from the Franklin Circuit
Court.
The Honorable J. Steven Cox, Judge.
State of Indiana, Trial Court Cause No.
Appellee-Plaintiff. 24C01-1108-FB-48
Sharpnack, Senior Judge
Statement of the Case
[1] Timothy Allen appeals from the trial court’s order revoking his probation and
imposing the execution of Allen’s previously-suspended, twenty-year sentence
in the Department of Correction, contending that he did not waive his right to
counsel at the fact-finding hearing on the petition to revoke his probation. The
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A05-1706-CR-1303 | October 17, 2017 Page 1 of 6
State agrees that the record does not reflect a valid waiver of the right to
counsel. We reverse and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Allen pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine for which
he received a twenty-year suspended sentence to be served on supervised
probation. The probation violation petition at issue here alleged that Allen had
committed new crimes involving dealing in methamphetamine, as a Level 3
felony, possession of methamphetamine, as a Level 5 felony, illegal possession
of precursors, a Level 6 felony, and maintaining a common nuisance, a Level 6
felony.
[3] Allen appeared pro se at his initial hearing on the petition, which was
conducted at the same time as the initial hearing on the new allegations filed
under a separate cause number. The trial court advised Allen of his rights
under the newly filed charges. At that time, Allen told the trial court that he
needed an attorney. Tr. p. 5. The trial court indicated that the issue would be
addressed later. After the trial court completed the advisement of rights with
respect to all pending issues, allegations, and charges, the court asked Allen
why he could not hire his own counsel. Allen responded by saying that he
would attempt to hire private counsel, but that he was currently without funds
to do so. The trial court then addressed Allen’s potential eligibility for pauper
counsel as follows:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A05-1706-CR-1303 | October 17, 2017 Page 2 of 6
THE COURT: Okay, the Court will enter preliminary pleas of
not guilty on your behalf and denial on the probation violation
and we’ll set the matter for an omnibus date, uh, for May the
10th, set the matter for a pre-trial which you’re ordered to attend .
. . unless you have an attorney on the 8th of June, 2017 at 1:00
o’clock. And you’re still receiving benefits?
[ALLEN]: Yes, I [am] getting ready to go . . . Your Honor. I’m
getting ready to go to rehab, uh, suppose[d] to be tomorrow. . . .
THE COURT: Why can’t you hire counsel?
[ALLEN]: Well, I’m going to try, Your Honor, but I’ve got to
see how much money I can save because I’ve still got . . . . I
don’t got [sic] control of my money. My sister does, but she pays
all my bills. I’m going to save . . . . get an attorney if I can.
Now, can I have so much time to try to get an attorney, Your
Honor?
THE COURT: Well, you’ve got until June the . . . . whatever
date I just gave you, June the 9th.
[ALLEN]: Well, I . . . . can I possibly try to see if I can get me
an attorney before I get appointed attorney?
THE COURT: I’m sorry. June the 8th is the first date that you
have to appear . . . [sic]
[ALLEN]: Okay.
THE COURT: . . . . but . . .uh, an attorney would be beneficial
to you so that you don’t miss deadlines for the omnibus date
which is a month before that, but if you . . . . I don’t know if
you’re asking for counsel or not. You have income, . . . .
[ALLEN]: Yeah.
THE COURT: . . . .so you’re not indigent.
[ALLEN]: No.
THE COURT: So you probably don’t qualify for it.
[ALLEN]: Okay.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A05-1706-CR-1303 | October 17, 2017 Page 3 of 6
THE COURT: But I don’t know what your obligations are . .
[sic] I don’t know . . . . I mean . . . .
[ALLEN]: Yeah, we’ve been looking for . . . I have been looking
for attorneys, but they want pretty lot down . . . so that’s why I’m
trying to save up money and to . . . and hope I can get one.
THE COURT: Okay, I don’t know what your Motion is today?
[ALLEN]: Today, I want to try and get my own attorney for
right now . . . . you’re talk . . . . Your Honor.
THE COURT: You’re going to try to get your own?
[ALLEN]: Yes, yes.
Tr. pp. 7-8.
[4] After a continuance, the fact-finding hearing on the probation violation was
held on May 24, 2017. The State raised the issue of Allen’s attempt to gain
legal representation, noting that he presently appeared pro se. Specifically, the
State said: “Your Honor, I don’t know if it’s a preliminary matter. I talked to
Mr. Allen prior and he said he was going to get an attorney. So, I don’t know if
you want to address that, or we just proceed.” Id. at 12. The trial court
responded by saying, “Well, Mr. Allen told me at the Initial Hearing he was
going to hire an attorney, and he was free to that, and he didn’t. So this is the
fact finding and we’re ready to proceed.” Id. The matter proceeded without
any inquiry about Allen’s efforts to obtain counsel, his ability to pay, and the
record does not reflect that Allen affirmatively waived his right to counsel.
Further, there was no advisement given to Allen of the dangers of proceeding
pro se.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A05-1706-CR-1303 | October 17, 2017 Page 4 of 6
[5] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found Allen had violated the
terms and conditions of his probation and imposed the execution of the twenty-
year, previously-suspended, sentence to be executed in the Department of
Correction. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[6] The dispositive issue upon which we decide Allen’s challenge to his probation
revocation is the issue of his waiver of the right to counsel. “Probation is a
favor granted by the State, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.”
Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. When
faced with a petition to revoke probation, a probationer is not entitled to the full
panoply of rights he enjoyed prior to the conviction. Rosa v. State, 832 N.E.2d
1119, 1121 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). However, a petitioner is entitled to certain
due process protections such as representation by counsel. Cooper v. State, 900
N.E.2d 64, 66 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009); see also, Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(e) (2017).
[7] Here, the State agrees with Allen that the record does not reflect a valid waiver
of the right to counsel. Appellee’s Br. p. 7. If a petitioner makes the decision to
proceed without the benefit of counsel, we must be confident that the record
reflects that the right to counsel was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently
waived. Cooper, 900 N.E.2d at 66. Without such, we are without an adequate
record to establish waiver. Id.[8] We recognize that there are no magic words a trial court must utter to ensure
that the defendant appreciates the situation, but the particular facts must show
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A05-1706-CR-1303 | October 17, 2017 Page 5 of 6
that the defendant understands, based on his background, experience, and
conduct, the nature of the situation. Id.[9] We agree with the following from the State’s brief:
[T]hat the record in this case is inadequate to show a knowing,
voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel. Allen
was never advised of the pitfalls of proceeding without an
attorney. He was never fully questioned about his ability to
understand and appreciate the proceedings. In fact, he told the
trial court that he did not read well and repeated that he was
confused throughout the fact-finding hearing (Tr. 4, 24, 26-27,
29). The trial court did not establish that Allen understood that
he had a right to counsel if he could not afford to retain his own,
that he was waiving that right, and that certain dangers inure to
proceeding pro se. Therefore, the State agrees that the trial
court’s order revoking Allen’s probation should be reversed, and
the case remanded to the trial court for a new fact-finding
hearing.
Appellee’s Br. p. 8.
Conclusion
[10] In light of the foregoing, we reverse the revocation of probation and remand for
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[11] Reversed and remanded.
Kirsch, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A05-1706-CR-1303 | October 17, 2017 Page 6 of 6