Little v. State, No. 1184S448

Docket NºNo. 1184S448
Citation501 N.E.2d 447
Case DateDecember 24, 1986
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 447

501 N.E.2d 447
Ronald Ray LITTLE, Appellant, (Defendant below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee, (Plaintiff below).
No. 1184S448.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Dec. 24, 1986.

Page 448

Barrie C. Tremper, Chief Public Defender, Fort Wayne, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Marguerite M. Sweeney, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PIVARNIK, Justice.

Defendant-Appellant Ronald Ray Little pleaded guilty to one count of attempted murder and one count of robbery, both class A felonies. Subsequently, the trial court granted his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and vacated the judgment and sentence. Appellant proceeded to trial in the Allen Circuit Court on the same two charges. The jury returned guilty verdicts on both counts and Appellant was sentenced to two, consecutive, thirty (30) year terms. The following issues are raised on direct appeal:

1. Appellant's motion for continuance and request for private counsel, and effectiveness of trial counsel;

2. jury instructions and verdict forms regarding lesser included offenses;

3. sentencing; and

Page 449

4. alleged defects in the charging information.

Appellant arrived at the Lassus Brothers service station in Fort Wayne at about 3:30 p.m. on January 23, 1982, and requested assistance. He stayed at the station until about 5:30, at which time he brandished a handgun, took three bundles of money, forced the victim into a back room, and shot him twice in the back. The victim was able to notify the police and describe his assailant before being taken to the hospital for treatment of his gunshot wounds. The police followed Appellant into a public library, apprehended him, and took him to the hospital, where the victim made a positive identification.

I

Trial Counsel was appointed on November 7, 1983. On January 9, 1984, Appellant moved for a speedy trial, and jury trial was set for March 7, 1984. On March 1, 1984, Appellant sought a continuance and waived his right to a speedy trial. A hearing was held on March 5, 1984, at which continuance was denied. On the morning of trial, Appellant moved, pro se, to dismiss his attorney. The only reason Appellant has asserted to support his motion is that his attorney "did not have an opportunity to adequately prepare for his trial." Appellant's failure to provide us with a transcript of the hearing severely hindered our review of this issue. At the sentencing hearing, however, Appellant's attorney stated he had "more than enough time" to prepare for trial, that he visited Appellant several times at the jail, and that he did a "great deal of preparation" on his own.

Ind.Code Sec. 35-36-7-1 provides for a continuance upon a proper showing of an absence of evidence or the illness or absence of the defendant or a witness. Any other continuance is within the sole discretion of the trial court. Clarkson v. State (1985), Ind., 486 N.E.2d 501, 504; Ind.R.Tr.P. 53.5. Appellant has made absolutely no showing that a continuance was required. His sole rationale for his motion, that his attorney did not have time to adequately prepare, was contradicted by the attorney. The trial court was within its discretion in denying the motion.

In regard to Appellant's allegation that the trial court erred in denying his request for private counsel, Appellant simply raises this allegation without any supporting argument. The issue is waived. Wagner v. State (1985), Ind., 474 N.E.2d 476, 491.

In a related, and equally general argument, Appellant further contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not have sufficient time to prepare. Appellant alleges Trial Counsel "did not file certain and various motions as requested by the defendant." There is no showing as to the merits of these motions or their potential for aiding Appellant's defense. The decision to file particular motions is one of trial strategy, and will not be an indication of ineffective assistance of counsel absent an express showing to the contrary. Harrison v. State (1986), Ind., 496 N.E.2d 49, 53. Appellant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • Smith v. State, No. 85S04-9701-CR-27
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 29 Diciembre 1997
    ..."explain evidence, rather than exclude it, is a tactical decision within counsel's reasonable professional judgment"); Little v. State, 501 N.E.2d 447, 449 (Ind.1986)(reasoning that ordinarily the decision to file particular motions is one of trial 9 See, e.g., Pemberton v. State, 560 N.E.2......
  • Knight v. State, No. SC18-309
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 19 Diciembre 2019
    ...41, 185 Ill.Dec. 195, 614 N.E.2d 329, 333 (1993), aff'd, 166 Ill.2d 441, 211 Ill.Dec. 481, 655 N.E.2d 864 (1995) ; Little v. State , 501 N.E.2d 447, 449-50 (Ind. 1986) ; State v. Sutherland , 248 Kan. 96, 804 P.2d 970, 974-75 (1991) ; Commonwealth v. Mack , 423 Mass. 288, 667 N.E.2d 867, 86......
  • Danks v. State, No. 46A03-9908-PC-330.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 3 Agosto 2000
    ...to file motions on a defendant's behalf, it must be demonstrated that such motions would have been successful. See Little v. State, 501 N.E.2d 447, 449 (Ind.1986) (ineffective assistance claim based on defense counsel's failure to file motions rejected when defendant made no showing as to t......
  • Brooks v. State, No. 20S00-8801-CR-25
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 25 Septiembre 1990
    ...Hampton v. State (1990), Ind., 553 N.E.2d 132 (multiple crimes committed against multiple victims); Little v. State (1986), Ind., 501 N.E.2d 447 (multiple crimes committed against a single The trial court also based its decision to order consecutive sentences on the evidence presented at tr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • Smith v. State, No. 85S04-9701-CR-27
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 29 Diciembre 1997
    ..."explain evidence, rather than exclude it, is a tactical decision within counsel's reasonable professional judgment"); Little v. State, 501 N.E.2d 447, 449 (Ind.1986)(reasoning that ordinarily the decision to file particular motions is one of trial 9 See, e.g., Pemberton v. State, 560 N.E.2......
  • Knight v. State, No. SC18-309
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 19 Diciembre 2019
    ...41, 185 Ill.Dec. 195, 614 N.E.2d 329, 333 (1993), aff'd, 166 Ill.2d 441, 211 Ill.Dec. 481, 655 N.E.2d 864 (1995) ; Little v. State , 501 N.E.2d 447, 449-50 (Ind. 1986) ; State v. Sutherland , 248 Kan. 96, 804 P.2d 970, 974-75 (1991) ; Commonwealth v. Mack , 423 Mass. 288, 667 N.E.2d 867, 86......
  • Danks v. State, No. 46A03-9908-PC-330.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 3 Agosto 2000
    ...to file motions on a defendant's behalf, it must be demonstrated that such motions would have been successful. See Little v. State, 501 N.E.2d 447, 449 (Ind.1986) (ineffective assistance claim based on defense counsel's failure to file motions rejected when defendant made no showing as to t......
  • Brooks v. State, No. 20S00-8801-CR-25
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 25 Septiembre 1990
    ...Hampton v. State (1990), Ind., 553 N.E.2d 132 (multiple crimes committed against multiple victims); Little v. State (1986), Ind., 501 N.E.2d 447 (multiple crimes committed against a single The trial court also based its decision to order consecutive sentences on the evidence presented at tr......
  • 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