Phillips v. State
Decision Date | 06 April 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 1-1281A357,1-1281A357 |
Citation | 433 N.E.2d 800 |
Parties | Douglas L. PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Mark A. Greenwell, Keller & Holmes, Covington, for defendant-appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Joseph N. Stevenson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant-appellant Douglas L. Phillips (Douglas) was convicted, after a bench trial before the Traffic Commissioner of the Fountain Circuit Court, of the offense of speeding. Ind.Code 9-4-1-57(b)(2). Upon his conviction, a sentence of ten days in jail and a fine of $150 plus costs were imposed, and he appeals.
We reverse.
Douglas, age 16, was charged with driving 93 m.p.h. in a 55 m.p.h. zone. On June 9, 1981, he appeared before the Traffic Commissioner for arraignment accompanied by his father, Leon Phillips (Phillips). The Commissioner advised Phillips and Douglas of the charge and the maximum penalty, and Douglas entered a plea of not guilty. Thereafter, the Commissioner advised Douglas that a trial would be necessary, that the arresting officer would be present, that Douglas would have the right of cross examination, and that Douglas would have the right to subpoena witnesses in his behalf. Upon the trial court's inquiry whether Douglas intended to hire an attorney, Phillips replied that he would be representing his son. The Commissioner told Phillips that he could come to court and give testimony but that Douglas had to either represent himself or hire an attorney. Finally, the court agreed to allow Phillips, who is not a lawyer, to represent Douglas if the prosecuting attorney did not object. Phillips then asked if they could have a continuance in order to contact an attorney, and the Commissioner responded in the negative. Thereafter, at the arraignment, the court set the case for trial on July 1, 1981.
On the day of trial, the prosecuting attorney appeared with witnesses, and Douglas and Phillips appeared with witnesses. Prior to the commencement of the trial the Commissioner addressed Phillips and said, "Now Mr. Phillips, I understand that you are not an attorney, is that correct?" and Phillips acknowledged such was the case. The Commissioner then stated, At this juncture the prosecuting attorney indicated that he had no objection to Phillips representing his son. The Commissioner then informed Phillips about opening statements.
The trial proceeded and Phillips made an opening statement, cross examined witnesses, examined witnesses of his own, and made a final argument in which he complained that certain of his evidence had been excluded. In response to this grievance, the Commissioner stated:
The above recitals of the record concerning counsel for Douglas constitute all of the exchanges between the Commissioner and Douglas and his father on the subject.
Douglas presents three issues for review as follows:
I. Did the record establish that the defendant and his parents knowingly and intelligently waived the defendant's right to be represented by an attorney...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boyle v. State
...defendant was made aware of the nature, extent, and importance of the right and the consequences of waiving it. Id.; Phillips v. State (1982), Ind.App., 433 N.E.2d 800, 802. It is undisputed in this case that the trial court satisfied its first obligation--it made the Defendant aware of his......
-
Graves v. State
...with his eyes wide open. Merely making the defendant aware of his constitutional right to counsel is insufficient. Phillips v. State (1982), Ind.App., 433 N.E.2d 800; Mitchell, at 369; Wallace v. State (1977), 172 Ind.App. 535, 361 N.E.2d 159, trans. To demonstrate that the trial court neit......
-
Kirkham v. State
...and the consequences of waiving it. Merely making the defendant aware of his constitutional right is insufficient. Phillips v. State (1982), Ind.App., 433 N.E.2d 800; Mitchell v. State (1981), Ind.App., 417 N.E.2d 364; Wallace v. State (1977), 172 Ind.App. 535, 361 N.E.2d 159, trans. denied......