Placencia v. State

Decision Date21 April 1971
Docket NumberNo. 1070S230,1070S230
PartiesGene PLACENCIA, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Daniel A. Roby, Fort Wayne, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., by Robert F. Colker, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

HUNTER, Judge.

Appellant was charged by affidavit with the offense of aggravated assault and battery. Following appellant's plea of not guilty, a trial by jury was had and appellant was found guilty of simple assault and battery; a one thousand dollar ($1000) fine was imposed and appellant was sentenced to the Indiana State Farm for a period of six (6) months.

The grounds asserted in appellant's motion to correct errors are as follows:

'1. That the Court erred in failing to provide defendant with an attorney upon defendant's request.

2. That the Court erred in allowing the defendant to proceed with a jury trial on a felony charge without the benefit of legal counsel.

3. That the Court erred in refusing to grant defendant a continuance for the purpose of securing legal counsel.'

The facts that gave rise to the grounds urged as error may be briefly summarized as follows. On June 23, 1969, appellant appeared in person and without counsel for arraignment on the above named charge. Arraignment proceeded to the point where the appellant was asked if he was represented by counsel; upon appellant's statement that he had secured counsel who was unable to be present and with whom he had been unable to confer, arraignment was continued. On August 5, 1969, arraignment was re-commenced, appellant again appearing without counsel. At that time, appellant requested the appointment of counsel at public expense; a hearing upon the request was immediately had and the court determined that appellant was not an indigent. His request for appointment of counsel at public expense was therefore denied and arraignment continued, giving appellant time in which to secure legal assistance at his own expense.

On February 13, 1970, appellant again appeared without counsel for purposes of arraignment. Upon being advised of his rights, including his right to be represented by counsel, appellant informed the court that he wished to proceed without benefit of counsel, that he understood the nature of the charges against him, that he had in no way been induced to plead either guilty or not-guilty and that he, in fact, wished to plead not-guilty. Appellant also requested that he be tried by jury.

The cause was set for trial on May 13, 1970 and on that date appellant appeared unaccompanied by trial counsel. Once again he was advised of his right to be represented by counsel but he stated to the court that he desired to proceed without the benefit of legal assistance. A jury was sworn and the trial commenced. During the state's presentation of its case in chief, appellant requested a continuance for the purpose of consulting a lawyer indicating that he had gotten in 'over his head.' The request was denied and appellant was ultimately found guilty of simple assault and battery; this appeal follows.

A criminal defendant's right to be represented by counsel at trial where he so desires has long been recognized and studiously preserved. Fitzgerald v. State (1970), Ind., 257 N.E.2d 305; State v. Minton (1955),234 Ind. 578, 130 N.E.2d 226; Hoy v. State (1947), 225 Ind. 428, 75 N.E.2d 915. It has also been recognized, however, that one may waive his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. Carter v. State (1963),243 Ind. 584, 187 N.E.2d 482; State v. Minton, supra; Todd v. State (1948), 226 Ind. 496, 81 N.E.2d 530, 784, 82 N.E.2d 407. Further, it has been said that an accused cannot be compelled to accept the appointment of counsel against his will. Gates v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 325, 183 N.E.2d 601; Page v. State (1956), 235 Ind. 628, 137 N.E.2d 405; Chandler v. State (1949), 226 Ind. 648, 83 N.E.2d 189. From the foregoing it would follow that the trial court, after having expressly advised an accused of his right to counsel and having been informed by the accused that he wishes to proceed pro se, that decision appearing to have been knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made, would be entitled to proceed with trial. In such a case the accused must take the consequences of his own deliberate act and is presumed to accept the burden and hazards incident to his position. See, Franklin v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 418, 126 N.E.2d 768; Blanton v. State (1951), 229 Ind. 701, 98 N.E.2d 186.

Here the appellant was advised on several occasions that he had the right to be assisted by trial counsel; nevertheless he chose to proceed pro se. In such a situation it is reasonable to presume that the implications and consequences have been considered by the accused and that his decision is a conscious election to assume the risks incident to a trial conducted without benefit of counsel. One such risk clearly is the development of circumstances with which the accused will be incapable of coping. Nevertheless he has made a decision...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Russell v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • July 27, 1978
    ...the aid of counsel and represent himself. Faretta v. California, supra, n. 15, 422 U.S. at 2533, 95 S.Ct. 2525; Placencia v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 314, 268 N.E.2d 613. Moreover, in most instances in order to assert one of these rights the accused must apparently relinquish the other. Walla......
  • Wright v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • May 4, 2021
    ...making "a conscious election to assume the risks incident to a trial conducted without benefit of counsel." Placencia v. State , 256 Ind. 314, 317, 268 N.E.2d 613, 614 (1971). Today, by contrast, a trial court must ensure the defendant "knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eye......
  • Owen v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • November 2, 1978
    ...However this may be, self-representation has traditionally been allowed in this state at both the trial level, See Placencia v. State, (1971) 256 Ind. 314, 268 N.E.2d 613, And Todd v. State, (1948) 226 Ind. 496, 81 N.E.2d 530, 81 N.E.2d 784, and at the appellate level, See, e. g., Fender v.......
  • Russell v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • December 15, 1978
    ...of this language in Faretta, the Indiana Court of Appeals and this court have rejected the earlier position of Placencia v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 314, 317, 268 N.E.2d 613, 614, which stated that an accused who had been expressly advised of the right to counsel, and deliberately chose to pr......
  • 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