Howard v. State, 02S03-9108-PC-632
| Decision Date | 16 August 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 02S03-9108-PC-632,02S03-9108-PC-632 |
| Parties | Wallace A. HOWARD, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
The Court of Appeals, in an opinion reported at 567 N.E.2d 844, reversed denial of appellant's pro se post-conviction relief petition. The State requests transfer. We accept transfer and vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals. The sole issue addressed by this case is whether the trial court erred in summarily denying Howard's pro se petition without first ordering that a copy be sent to the Public Defender's office.
On April 20, 1989, Howard pled guilty to offenses of burglary and receiving stolen property. In August of that same year, Howard filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief stating:
The Petitioner does'not [sic] wish the services of the Public Defender's Office at this time. However., [sic], petitioner would want to retain this right if determined he can'not [sic] adequately proceed PRO-SE in this cause of action. The Petitioner will complete the Affidavit of Indigence.
Howard, 567 N.E.2d at 844. Howard's petition consisted primarily of various allegations, including that the petitioner failed to knowingly and intelligently enter into a plea agreement, that his conviction and sentence violated U.S. and Indiana constitutional law, that the petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that previously unheard evidence existed that required that the sentence be vacated. Petitioner asserted that he could not state facts in support of these allegations, however, until he was supplied with the requested transcripts of the proceedings.
The post-conviction court denied Howard's petition, finding that the "petition presents no issues of fact on [sic] law that have merit to require hearing." The court did not forward Howard's petition to the State Public Defender's office. Howard asserts that he was denied due process of law because this failure to forward his petition consequently deprived him of the opportunity to confer with counsel. We disagree.
Where, as here, the petitioner has expressly decided to proceed pro se, there is no requirement that his petition be sent to the State Public Defender. Howard argues that in his pro se petition he expressly reserved the right to representation by the State Public Defender's office if it were determined that he could not adequately proceed alone. This places the trial court judge in the untenable position of not only ruling on the merits of the petition but, simultaneously, monitoring the petitioner's abilities to represent himself and informing him when it is time to demand his right to state-provided representation. We will not allow the trial judge to be so placed. Petitioner had a choice to either proceed pro se or to request the services of the public defender. He chose to institute pro se proceedings. He cannot now demand that the trial court act as lifeguard and rescue him because, in hindsight, he believes that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curry v. State
...and thereby obtain the assistance of a public defender, or of proceeding pro se. Ind.Post-Conviction Rule 1, § 9(a); Howard v. State (1991), Ind., 576 N.E.2d 1253. A petitioner cannot elect both options. See id. He may chose to proceed pro se or to request the services of a public defender.......
-
Armstead v. State, 82A01-9201-PC-22
...the proceedings on Armstead's petition reflects that the trial court relied upon the Indiana Supreme Court's decisions in Howard v. State (1991), Ind., 576 N.E.2d 1253, on rehearing, 581 N.E.2d 925, in which, despite allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court upheld the sum......
-
Neville v. State, 40A04-9507-PC-285
...of indigency and thereby obtain the assistance of a public defender, or of proceeding pro se. P.-C.R. 1, Sec. 9(a); Howard v. State, 576 N.E.2d 1253, 1254 (Ind.1991), reh'g denied. Further, the Appendix to Rule 1 In order for this motion to receive consideration by the court, ... it shall s......
-
Shumaker v. State
...conclusively demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Howard v. State, 576 N.E.2d 1253, 1254 (Ind.1991) (citing P–C. R. 1(4)(g)). “An evidentiary hearing is not necessary when the pleadings show only issues of law; [t]he need ......