Parker v. State
| Citation | 172 N.E.3d 695 (Table) |
| Decision Date | 16 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-CR-84 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
| Parties | Courtney Lamar PARKER, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff |
Attorney for Appellant: Kristin A. Mulholland, Appellate Public Defender, Crown Point, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Megan M. Smith, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] Courtney Lamar Parker was convicted of two counts of burglary, as Level 5 felonies, after a jury trial. In the lead-up to trial, Parker repeatedly affirmed his intent to proceed pro se, albeit with the assistance of standby counsel. The trial court admonished Parker that proceeding pro se is highly inadvisable. Nevertheless, Parker insisted. Parker now argues that his constitutional right to counsel was violated when the trial court permitted Parker to represent himself and that his self-representation inhibited his ability to obtain a fair trial. We disagree and, thus, affirm.
[2] Parker raises two issues, which we consolidate and restate whether Parker's waiver of counsel deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
[3] Shortly before 9:00 p.m. on the night of December 27, 2015, Officer Brian Taylor of the Hobart Police Department responded to a radio call regarding gunfire. Arriving at the area from which the call was generated, Officer Taylor noticed an unattended sports utility vehicle parked next to a vacant building. Officer Taylor began to investigate. He noticed that the vehicle contained large cable or copper
wire covered in soot or ash. Officer Taylor then turned his attention to the vacant building, spotting what he believed to be fresh damage to an entry door. The lock to the door appeared to have been cut and was on the ground. An exterior electric panel was similarly damaged. At this point, Officer Taylor placed a radio call requesting additional officers at the scene.
[4] Before additional officers could arrive, Officer Taylor's attention was drawn to an area behind the vacant building. He illuminated the area and discovered Parker and Nicole Glauvogl standing there. Officer Taylor summoned the two and made note of their dirty hands as they approached. Parker and Glauvogl indicated that the unoccupied car belonged to them, and, in response to questioning about the copper
wire inside, Parker said that he found the wire on the ground. Parker was subsequently searched, and a flat-head screw matching those used to secure the doors on the electrical panel was recovered from his person. A screwdriver was recovered from Parker's car.1
[5] A second business unit in the vacant building also showed the signs of a recent break-in, including damage to the door and exterior electric panels and a cut lock. The second unit had previously been subjected to fire damage and the resulting soot and ash had yet to be removed. Electrical panels in both units were stripped of their copper
wiring. Officers also discovered bolt cutters inside the doorway of one of the damaged units. Officer Taylor conducted his routine patrols earlier that day, at which time the units were undamaged.
[6] On December 28, 2015, the State charged Parker with two counts of burglary, as Level 5 felonies, one for each of the two business units. At a hearing on September 4, 2019, Parker dismissed his attorney and announced to the trial court that he would be proceeding pro se. The following colloquy ensued:
[7] Parker indicated that he had represented himself on prior occasions with some success. He further demonstrated that he was familiar with the process for issuing subpoenas to witnesses, for requesting that the State turn over its discovery, and for requesting a witness list. The trial court warned Parker that Parker would be held to the same standards as an attorney and would receive no special treatment. The trial court also instructed Parker to file all appropriate motions in writing. Finally, the trial court attempted once more as follows to ascertain whether Parker was serious about proceeding pro se:
[8] In a series of hearings leading up to Parker's trial, the trial court frequently checked in with Parker to confirm his desire to proceed pro se. At no point did that desire appear to waver, despite subsequent renewed warnings from the trial court that proceeding pro se is inadvisable. Parker did eventually request, and was granted, standby counsel. The record reflects that Parker filed a variety of motions. Parker also made frequent discovery requests and subpoenaed and took the depositions of key witnesses.
[9] Parker underwent a jury trial for the burglaries in October 2020. The jury returned verdicts of guilty on both counts. On December 15, 2020, the trial sentenced Parker to five years on each count to be served concurrently. Parker now appeals.
[11] Accordingly, the right to self-representation may, unfortunately, often conflict with the right to a fair trial. See, e.g. , Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate Dist. , 528 U.S. 152, 164, 120 S. Ct. 684 (2000) (Breyer, J., concurring) (citing United States v. Farhad , 190 F.3d 1097, 1107 (9th Cir. 1999) (Reinhardt, J. concurring)). Our Supreme Court recently reviewed the history of this "constitutional paradox" in Wright v. State , 168 N.E.3d 244 (Ind. 2021). The Court concluded that the right to self-represent is not absolute and that the waiver of counsel must be: (1) knowing; (2) intelligent; (3) unequivocal; and (4) voluntary.
When deciding whether a defendant meets these standards, a trial court should inquire, on the record, whether the defendant clearly understands (1) the nature of the charges against her, including any possible defenses; (2) the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding pro se and the fact that she's held to the same standards as a professional attorney; and (3) that a trained attorney possesses the necessary...
To continue reading
Request your trial