Arrington v. State

• Decision Date: 20 November 2019
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-94
• Citation: 138 N.E.3d 980 (Table)
• Parties: Emmanuel ARRINGTON, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

138 N.E.3d 980 (Table)

Emmanuel ARRINGTON, Appellant-Defendant,

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff,

Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-94

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Filed November 20, 2019

Attorney for Appellant: Brent R. Dechert, Kokomo, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Jesse R. Drum, Supervising Deputy, Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Robb, Judge.

Case Summary and Issues

[1] Following a jury trial, Emmanuel Arrington was convicted of attempted murder, a Level 1 felony, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Level 4 felony. The trial court sentenced Arrington to forty years for his attempted murder conviction and twelve years for his unlawful possession conviction, to be served concurrently. Arrington appeals his convictions and sentence and raises four issues for our review: (1) whether Arrington knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel; (2) whether the trial court committed fundamental error when it did not remove the jury following the refusal of a State's witness to testify; (3) whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support Arrington's convictions; and (4) whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Arrington. Concluding Arrington knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, the State presented sufficient evidence to support Arrington's convictions, and the trial court did not commit fundamental error or abuse its discretion in sentencing Arrington, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Steven Landrum, Jeremy Wilson, and Arrington have known each other for many years. Early on the morning of February 2, 2016, all three men were at Big Daddy's Show Club in Kokomo, Indiana. At some point, Wilson and Landrum got into an argument and began to physically fight. Arrington jumped in and hit Landrum in the back of his head. Security broke up the fight and removed Arrington and Wilson from the club.

[3] After the fight, Landrum also left the club and went to Shanika Anderson's house located on East Mulberry Street. At the house, Landrum called Wilson, accused him of trying to have sex with Landrum's wife, and stated that "if [Arrington] wanted to fight me he could fight me one on one." Transcript, Volume II at 222. At the time of the call, Wilson and Arrington were together and Landrum could hear Arrington calling him names in the background. Wilson asked Landrum where he was, and Landrum stated he was "over on Mulberry" Street. Id. at 223. Gentry Gittings, Anderson, and Yardana Horton were all present at the Mulberry Street house during the phone call and Landrum believed they could overhear the conversation because it was on speaker phone. Fifteen to twenty minutes later, someone knocked on the door of Anderson's house and "it turned out to be [Arrington and Wilson] and another guy. There was three of them, one on the sidewalk, two on the porch." Id. The front door of the house was open, but the storm door was closed. Landrum walked over to the door and "tried to open the [storm] door and then when I couldn't get the door open Emanuel Arrington pulled, had his pistol in his hand. He up'd it and shot me in the shirt" through the door. Id. at 224. After Landrum was shot in the chest, he turned around and both Anderson and Horton heard Landrum say that Arrington "just shot me." Id. at 186, 205.

[4] Around 2:30 a.m., officers of the Kokomo Police Department ("KPD") were dispatched to the scene. Three officers wore body cameras, which recorded their actions. Officers discovered a spent .380 caliber shell casing near a ramp that leads to the porch of the home and observed the bottom half of the glass storm door had been "shot out" but the top half remained intact. Id. at 146. Landrum was taken to St. Vincent's Hospital in Indianapolis and ultimately survived his gunshot wound. However, the bullet remains lodged in Landrum's back and spinal cord because removing it could paralyze him. Landrum initially refused to tell officers who shot him but later, while in the hospital, identified Arrington as the shooter. See Tr., Vol. III at 4.

[5] On February 3, 2016, the State charged Landrum with attempted murder, a Level 1 felony, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Level 4 felony. A jury trial was scheduled for November 13, 2018. Throughout the proceedings, Arrington had been represented by multiple private attorneys. On October 5, 2018, Arrington filed a motion to proceed pro se, in which he stated: "I ... feel[ ] compe[tent] enough to represent myself[,]" "I have been researching and preparing my case since I have been incarcerated[,]" and "I am prepared and ready to go forth with my trial [set] for November 13, 2018[.]" Appellant's Appendix, Volume 8 at 102. The trial court held a status hearing on October 30 and addressed Arrington's motion:

[Court]: OK. So you absolutely do not want to proceed with an attorney representing you, is that correct?

[Arrington]: Mr. Rosselot is a paid attorney. I won't have the money to go forward.

* * *

[Court]: OK. And again, like I said, just because you didn't pay doesn't mean, given the timing of where we're at, I don't have to, again, I know I don't have to, the law doesn't allow me to allow him to withdraw, you understand?

[Arrington]: Right.

[Court]: So is it because you want to proceed and represent yourself or is it because you can't afford to pay Mr. Rosselot to represent you, moving forward?

[Arrington]: I can't afford to pay Mr. Rosselot.

[Court]: So you would like to have an attorney, you just can't afford one?

[Arrington]: Right.

Tr., Vol. II at 83-84. The trial court asked Arrington a series of questions, determined that he was indigent, and appointed David Rosselot as a special public defender. However, Arrington again requested to proceed pro se. The trial court and Arrington engaged in the following colloquy:

[Court]: So, Mr. Arrington, why don't you tell the Court what it is that you want at this point in time? Go ahead.

[Arrington]: I would like to represent myself with standby counsel[.]

* * *

[Court]: So now you're saying that you want to proceed pro se, that's your position right now?

[Arrington]: Yes, sir.

* * *

[Court]: Alright. Now, your trial is currently set for November 13th, 2018. You've indicated to me that you want to represent yourself at that trial. I want you to understand that you do have the right to represent yourself at trial, just as you have the right to have counsel represent you and to have the court-appointed counsel for trial ... if you cannot afford an attorney. Before you make that decision final, I want you to understand what you will be giving up. You may have any number of defenses which apply to your case and which an attorney is trying to know. Should you be convicted of this offense you are facing a penalty anywhere between 45 and 65 years in jail. There are factors which the Court can consider in increasing your sentence within that range or in decreasing your sentence within that range. These are factors which an attorney would know about. An attorney has developed certain skills to assist you in presenting a defense to the charge against you. These include investigating your case, interrogating witnesses against you, and finding favorable witnesses and obtaining their testimony, explaining charges in any lesser included offenses, gathering documents and other kinds of written evidence, preparing and filing motions before trial, such as motions for speedy trial, motions for discovery or motions to keep unfavorable information from being received as evidence, examining and cross-examining witnesses at trial, recognizing objectionable and unfavorable evidence and promptly objecting to its use, presenting favorable sentencing information and attacking unfavorable sentencing information. In jury trials presenting favorable opening and closing statements, preparing appropriate written jury instructions and selecting a jury, and training, knowledge and skill at properly preserving the record of the case for purposes of appeal. An attorney can also evaluate the strengths or weaknesses of the case against you and give expert advice on whether you should attempt to seek a plea agreement with the State of Indiana, which may result in the dismissal of some, or [all] of the charges against you and a recommendation for a favorable sentence in return for your guilty plea. Do you understand each and everything that I have said to you at this point?

[Arrington]: Yes, sir.

[Court]: You must understand that if you decide not to have an attorney, you will not receive any special treatment with your defense. You will have to follow all the same rules and procedures in your case as an attorney would have to. The State will be represented by an attorney and will have the advantage that an attorney presents. If you decide to represent yourself and the result turns out badly, you need to know that you will not be able to complain that you were not an effective attorney in your own defense. Do you understand that?

[Arrington]: Yes, sir.

[Court]: OK. As I have told you, you have a right to decide against having an attorney but you must be aware that deciding not to have an attorney can turn out to be a very bad decision. Experienced lawyers almost always decide to be represented by another lawyer in a criminal case. There are some ... things that you should consider before you appear at trial without an attorney and I want to ask you about them now. What skills or knowledge do you have that would be helpful to you if you represent yourself? Do you have any special skills or knowledge about the law or about your case that would help you represent yourself at this time?

[Arrington]: About my case, sir.

[Court]: Alright. Do you have any special skills or knowledge about the law?

[Arrington]: No, sir.

[Court]: Have you ever studied criminal law?

[Arringto

...