Marks v. State

• Decision Date: 25 March 2021
• Docket Number: 20A-CR-2012
• Parties: Christopher R. Marks, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff,
• Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana

Christopher R. Marks, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff,

No. 20A-CR-2012

Court of Appeals of Indiana

March 25, 2021

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

Appeal from the DeKalb Superior Court The Honorable Kevin P. Wallace, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 17D01-1809-F6-314

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

John M. Haecker

Squiller & Hamilton, LLP

Auburn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Theodore E. Rokita

Attorney General of Indiana

Caroline G. Templeton

Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Robb, Judge.

Case Summary and Issues

[¶1] Christopher Marks appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation and order that he serve his previously suspended sentence. He raises multiple issues for our review, which we restate as: (1) whether the trial court violated his right to self-representation; and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his probation. Concluding that the trial court did not violate Marks' right to self-representation and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[¶2] In 2018, the State charged Marks with nonsupport of a dependent, a Level 6 felony. Following a jury trial in 2019, Marks was found guilty. Subsequently, the trial court sentenced Marks to two years in the DeKalb County Jail, all suspended to probation. The conditions of Marks' probation included that he work regularly or actively seek employment and that he pay child support as ordered in cause number 17C01-1209-JP-102. See Appellant's Appendix, Volume 2 at 7-9. At the time of the jury trial Marks was unemployed and owed $16, 420.09 in child support. Id. at 25.^[1]

[¶3] On February 12, 2020, the State filed a petition to revoke or modify probation alleging that Marks violated the rules of his probation by failing to "make any payments towards his child support order in 17C01-1209-JP-102" and by not maintaining employment as required. Id. at 10. The State calculated that as of September 25, 2020, Marks owed $27, 937.09 in child support. Transcript, Volume II at 8; Exhibits, Volume III at 7. Marks did not pay any child support between his trial and the State's petition to revoke probation. See id.

[¶4] At the evidentiary hearing on the petition to revoke, Marks represented himself. However, the trial court also appointed standby counsel. See Tr., Vol. II at 4. Marks' girlfriend, Jennifer Stetler, testified that Marks was looking for employment and that she had witnessed Marks interviewing for jobs over the phone and via Skype. Stetler also testified that Marks watched her children during the day while she worked.^[2]

[¶5] Marks called himself to testify; however, the trial court had standby counsel conduct the direct examination, stating:

[Trial Court]: Okay, [standby counsel] will be asking you questions. I'm . . . not going to allow you to just speak on anything that happens to come to your mind

[Marks]: Okay

Id. at 22.

[¶6] Marks testified that he actively seeks employment, spending "three to five hours a day on job boards looking for employment." Id. at 28. Marks has also applied and interviewed for various jobs.^[3] However, Marks testified that he was unemployed at the time of the revocation hearing in part because the State had Marks' driver's license suspended when he stopped paying child support. See id. at 23. Marks further testified that due to being "obsessive-compulsive, agoraphobic and a germophobe [he] cannot work in kitchens[, ]" and due to arthritis in his back he is prevented from obtaining other types of employment.^[4]Id. at 27-28.

[¶7] The trial court found that Marks had violated his probation by "failing to make any payments toward his child support order entered under Cause No. 17C01-1209-JP-102." Appealed Order at 1; see Tr., Vol. 2 at 29. The trial court revoked his probation and ordered the balance of the suspended sentence be served in its entirety. Marks now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. Self-Representation

[¶8] The respondent in a probation revocation has a statutory right to counsel. Eaton v. State, 894 N.E.2d 213, 216 (Ind.Ct.App. 2008), trans. denied. Implicit in the right to counsel is the right to self-representation. Jackson v. State, 992 N.E.2d 926, 932 (Ind.Ct.App. 2013), trans. denied. Marks argues that he has a constitutional right to self-representation guaranteed by the Sixth...