18 N.E.3d 320 (Ind.App. 2014), 79A04-1311-CR-559, Michaels v. State
| Judge | BRADFORD, Judge. BARNES, J., and BROWN, J., concur. BARNES, J., and BROWN, J., concur. |
| Parties | RIO MICHAELS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff |
| Docket Number | 79A04-1311-CR-559 |
| Date | 07 August 2014 |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
| Citation | 18 N.E.3d 320 |
Page 320
Editorial Note:
These opinions are not precedents and cannot be cited or relied upon unless used when establishing res judicata or collateral estoppel or in actions between the same party. Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure 65(D).
APPEAL FROM THE TIPPECANOE SUPERIOR COURT. The Honorable Randy J. Williams, Judge. Cause No. 79D01-1207-FC-28.
OPINION
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CASE SUMMARY
Following a bifurcated jury trial, Appellant-Defendant Rio Michaels was convicted of Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license with a prior felony and Class D felony criminal recklessness. Michaels was subsequently sentenced to an aggregate ten-year term, with eight years executed in the Department of Correction ("DOC") and two years suspended to probation. On appeal, Michaels raises several issues, which we restate as follows: (1) whether Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana (the "State") presented sufficient evidence to negate Michaels's proffered necessity defense, (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Michaels's stand-by counsel's request for a continuance, (3) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the elevation of Michaels's conviction for carrying a handgun without a license to a Class C felony, and (4) whether Michaels's due process rights were violated by the alleged failure to promptly bring Michaels before the trial court for an initial hearing. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTOR
A. Factual Overview
1. Version of Events Presented by the State's Witnesses
On the afternoon of June 30, 2012, Angie Fassnacht and her boyfriend, Richard Fisher, were working on a house owned by Fassnacht's mother that was located at 1201 Washington Street in Lafayette ("1201 Washington Street residence"). The 1201 Washington Street residence was located next door to Michaels's residence. While on the front porch of the 1201 Washington Street residence, Fassnacht saw Michaels shoot a gun into the air. At the time Michaels shot the gun into the air he shouted "something about Joe." Tr. p. 165. Fassnacht was scared after Michaels shot the gun into the air, and she quickly "ran to [her] car." Tr. p. 161. Fassnacht later explained that she was "running for cover [because she] didn't know what [Michaels's] intentions were." Tr. p. 167. After getting into her vehicle, Fassnacht saw Michaels run to the back of his residence. After also hearing the gunshot, Fisher exited the 1201 Washington Street residence and joined Fassnacht in her vehicle. Fassnacht then called 911.
2. Version of Events Presented by the Defense's Witnesses
On the afternoon of June 30, 2012, Michaels's wife, Anna, was in a back bedroom of the home she shared with Michaels. Suddenly, Anna heard "some kicking at the bottom" of the back door. Tr. p. 230. Michaels was in the restroom at the time. Anna shouted "who is it like three times." Tr. p. 230. After receiving no response, Anna grabbed her pistol from her top dresser drawer, went to the back door, and flung the door open. When she opened the door, Anna saw a "tall, African American" man who was wearing a red "jersey style" shirt with "some kind of like shorts with the big cargo pockets on the side." Tr. p. 234. Anna believed that Fisher was the man kicking on her back door. Anna "fired off a round, pointed at the ground, and the guy was already tearing off across the back of the yard." Tr. p. 233. Anna later indicated that she reacted by grabbing and ultimately firing the weapon because she suffers from "a little touch of post-dramatic stress disorder," Tr. p. 232, because she had prior experience with "about seven different stalkers," some of whom were not "too safe." Tr. p. 231. Anna then called 911.
3. Police Investigation
A number of officers from the Lafayette Police Department responded to the scene. Both Fassnacht and Anna separately described their version of the events in question to the investigating officers. Anna initially told investigating officers that she thought she put the weapon back on the dresser after the incident, but stated that she could not be sure because she "was freaking out, I was crying, I was shaking bad ... I was just trembling like this and I was just on auto pilot at that point." Tr. p. 235. Anna subsequently indicated that Michaels took the weapon from her in order to protect their family because she was "holding that gun in the emotional state." Tr. p. 236.
When Officer Grant Davidson arrived on the scene, Michaels flagged him down. Michaels was nervous, spoke rapidly, and raised his hands as he informed Officer Davidson that he was carrying a handgun. Officer Davidson removed a black, semi-automatic gun from Michaels's front right pocket.
Consistent with Fassnacht's version of the events, investigating officers subsequently found a shell casing on the front porch of Michaels's residence. Investigating officers were not able to locate a shell casing in the backyard. Investigating officers observed no sign of damage to the back door of Michaels's residence.
B. Procedural History
On July 9, 2012, the State charged Michaels with Class C felony carrying a handgun by a convicted felon, Class D felony criminal recklessness, and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. The Lafayette County Public Defender's Office ("Public Defender's Office") was initially appointed to represent Michaels in the underlying case on August 8, 2012. However, at some point Michaels indicated that he did not want to be represented by the Public Defender's Officer, but rather that he wished to proceed pro se. Following a hearing at which the trial court explained the pitfalls of self-representation and examined Michaels's ability to represent himself, the trial court granted Michaels's motion to proceed pro se. The trial court also appointed the Public Defender's Office to serve as stand-by counsel.
On July 10, 2013, during a hearing at which Michaels was present, the trial court noted on the record that trial was scheduled for August 20, 2013. At some point on or before August 13, 2013, Kevin O'Reilly was appointed as stand-by counsel on behalf of the Public Defender's Office. On this date, O'Reilly appeared as stand-by counsel during a pre-trial hearing. O'Reilly also appeared as stand-by counsel during a subsequent pre-trial hearing. During these pre-trial hearings, O'Reilly was exposed to Michaels's claimed defenses and apparent trial strategy.
Despite being notified of the August 20, 2013 trial date in open court, Michaels failed to appear for trial on the morning of August 20, 2013. In light of Michaels's failure to appear, the trial court found that Michaels had relinquished his right to appear pro se and appointed O'Reilly to represent Michaels at trial. O'Reilly then requested a continuance of trial. The trial court denied O'Reilly's request for a continuance, and the case proceeded to trial.
Following part one of a bifurcated trial, the jury found Michaels guilty of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license and Class D felony criminal recklessness. The matter then proceeded to part two of the bifurcated trial, after which the jury determined that Michaels had committed a prior unrelated felony within the preceding fifteen years. In light of this determination, Michaels's conviction for carrying a handgun without a license was elevated to a Class C felony.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
I. Whether the State Sufficiency Negated Michaels's Proffered Necessity Defense
Initially we note that Michaels does not dispute that he possessed and carried a handgun without a license. Michaels, however, argues that he did so out of manifest necessity. On appeal, Michaels contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to negate his proffered necessity defense.
In order to prevail on a claim of necessity, the defendant must show (1) the act charged as criminal must have been done to prevent a significant evil, (2) there must have been no adequate alternative to the commission of the act, (3) the harm caused by the act must not be disproportionate to the harm avoided, (4) the accused must entertain a good faith belief that his act was necessary to prevent greater harm, (5) such belief must be objectively reasonable under all the circumstances, and (6) the accused must not have substantially contributed to the creation of the emergency. Toops v. State, 643 N.E.2d 387, 390 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). In order to negate a claim of necessity, the State must disprove at least one element of the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Pointer v. State, 585 N.E.2d 33, 36 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (discussing State's burden in the context of an analogous self-defense claim). The State may refute a claim of the defense of necessity by direct rebuttal, or by relying upon the sufficiency of the evidence in its case-in-chief. Id. The decision whether a claim of necessity has been disproved is entrusted to the fact-finder. Id. Where a defendant is convicted despite his claim of necessity, this court will reverse the conviction only if no reasonable person could say that the defense was negated by the State beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
Dozier v. State, 709 N.E.2d 27, 29 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
In arguing that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to negate his proffered necessity defense, Michaels argues that he established each of the above-stated six factors. Specifically, he argues that he possessed the weapon...
To continue reading
Request your trial