Harris v. State, No. 3-780A210

Docket NºNo. 3-780A210
Citation416 N.E.2d 902
Case DateFebruary 26, 1981
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 902

416 N.E.2d 902
Robert HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee.
No. 3-780A210.
Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District.
Feb. 26, 1981.

Page 903

Patricia L. Engels, Lake Village, for defendant-appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Gordon R. Medlicott, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.

STATON, Judge.

Robert Harris was charged and convicted by jury of the crimes of Burglary 1 and Theft. 2 He was sentenced to the Indiana Department of Correction for a period of ten years. On appeal, Harris raises three issues for our consideration:

(1) Did the court err in not allowing the court-appointed attorney to withdraw so that Harris could hire private counsel?

(2) Is there sufficient evidence to support the verdict of the jury?

(3) Did the court err in denying his motion for directed verdict on both counts at the close of the State's case-in-chief?

We affirm.

I.

Adequate Counsel

Harris first argues that the court erred in not allowing him "to hire an attorney of his own choosing." Suggesting that animosity existed between himself and his court-appointed attorney, Harris claims that he "was deprived of his right to representation by counsel in substance, if not in fact." We disagree.

An attorney is presumed to render competent representation and only a strong showing to the contrary will rebut this presumption. Lloyd v. State (1979), Ind., 383 N.E.2d 1048; Robertson v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 562, 319 N.E.2d 833. We will presume that counsel has prepared and executed his client's defense effectively, Hollon v. State (1980), Ind., 398 N.E.2d 1273, and will not second-guess matters of judgment and strategy unless it appears from the record that the trial was reduced to a mockery of justice. Hollon, supra; Lloyd, supra.

Page 904

The record indicates that on January 3, 1980, pauper counsel was appointed by the court, pursuant to Harris's request. Harris's counsel, among other things: represented him at the probable cause hearing; filed a Notice of Intent to Assert Alibi Defense; filed a Notice to Take Deposition; moved for a separation of witnesses prior to trial; and, argued a motion in limine. The trial began on February 7, 1980. After several preliminary motions had been made, Harris requested the withdrawal of his court-appointed attorney and asked that he be allowed to retain private counsel. Harris was asked by the court why he was dissatisfied with his representation. After explaining that he questioned some of his attorney's trial strategy, Harris stated that "I don't feel comfortable with him."

In addition to making his request at a most inopportune time, Harris has failed to demonstrate how he was prejudiced by anything his attorney did or failed to do. We conclude that the court did not err in denying his untimely request as it is not error to refuse a defendant's request to replace his counsel during or immediately before trial. Wombles v. State (1979), Ind., 383 N.E.2d 1037.

II.

Sufficiency of Evidence

Claiming that there is insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, Harris argues that the State failed to establish that he knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control over property of another with the intent to deprive that person of its use. IC 1971, 35-43-4-2. He also contends that there was insufficient evidence to show that he broke and entered a dwelling with the intent to commit a felony. IC 1971, 35-43-2-1.

In considering the question of sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, this Court may consider only that evidence most favorable to the State, together with all the logical and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. If there is sufficient evidence of probative value supporting the jury's verdict, it will not be set aside. Willard v. State (1980), Ind., 400 N.E.2d 151; Jones v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 640, 377 N.E.2d 1349. In reviewing such a claim, we will neither weigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of the witnesses. Willard, supra.

A review of the record indicates that, after a pre-Christmas early evening visit with relatives, the Wisemans returned to their farm to find their house lights on and a large...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Parr v. State, No. 1083S363
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 9, 1987
    ...error absent a showing by Defendant that he was prejudiced by anything his attorney did or did not do. Harris v. State (1981), Ind.App., 416 N.E.2d 902. There is no such showing here. The facts in each case determine whether a denial of request for continuance to obtain counsel is a violati......
  • Vacendak v. State, No. 1080S386
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 16, 1982
    ...the jury to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Faught v. State, (1979) Ind., 390 N.E.2d 1011; Harris v. State, (1981) Ind.App., 416 N.E.2d 902, 905. We have repeatedly held that in reviewing sufficiency arguments we consider only that evidence which is most favorable to the State to......
  • Harwei, Inc. v. State, No. 2-283A64
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • January 23, 1984
    ...on the evidence at the close of the state's case. Peckinpaugh v. State, (1983) Ind., 447 N.E.2d 576; Harris v. State, (1981) Ind.App., 416 N.E.2d 902. However, because we interpret the arguments presented on this issue to include a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the......
  • Thomas v. State, No. 2-1279A397
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • July 23, 1981
    ...may be sustained upon circumstantial evidence alone, Willard v. State, (1980) Ind., 400 N.E.2d 151; Harris v. State, (1981) Ind.App., 416 N.E.2d 902, and when we review such a conviction we need not examine the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to overcome every reasonable hypo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Parr v. State, No. 1083S363
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 9, 1987
    ...error absent a showing by Defendant that he was prejudiced by anything his attorney did or did not do. Harris v. State (1981), Ind.App., 416 N.E.2d 902. There is no such showing here. The facts in each case determine whether a denial of request for continuance to obtain counsel is a violati......
  • Vacendak v. State, No. 1080S386
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 16, 1982
    ...the jury to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Faught v. State, (1979) Ind., 390 N.E.2d 1011; Harris v. State, (1981) Ind.App., 416 N.E.2d 902, 905. We have repeatedly held that in reviewing sufficiency arguments we consider only that evidence which is most favorable to the State to......
  • Harwei, Inc. v. State, No. 2-283A64
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • January 23, 1984
    ...on the evidence at the close of the state's case. Peckinpaugh v. State, (1983) Ind., 447 N.E.2d 576; Harris v. State, (1981) Ind.App., 416 N.E.2d 902. However, because we interpret the arguments presented on this issue to include a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the......
  • Thomas v. State, No. 2-1279A397
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • July 23, 1981
    ...may be sustained upon circumstantial evidence alone, Willard v. State, (1980) Ind., 400 N.E.2d 151; Harris v. State, (1981) Ind.App., 416 N.E.2d 902, and when we review such a conviction we need not examine the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to overcome every reasonable hypo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT