MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Nov 30 2016, 8:18 am Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this CLERK Memorandum Decision shall not be Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals regarded as precedent or cited before any and Tax Court
court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Donald E.C. Leicht Gregory F. Zoeller Kokomo, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Larry D. Allen Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ronnie Bradfield, November 30, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 34A02-1604-CR-730 v. Appeal from the Howard Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Brant Parry, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No. 34D02-1602-F6-30 34D02-1601-CM-12
Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1604-CR-730 |November 30, 2016 Page 1 of 7 [1] Ronnie Bradfield appeals his sentence and argues he was denied his right to
counsel. We reverse and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On January 15, 2016, the State charged Bradfield under two causes. First,
Bradfield was charged under cause number 34D02-1601-CM-12 (“Cause No.
12”) with theft as a class A misdemeanor. Second, he was charged under cause
number 34D02-1602-F6-30 (“Cause No. 30”) with auto theft and resisting law
enforcement as level 6 felonies, possession of a synthetic drug or synthetic drug
lookalike substance as a class A misdemeanor, and operating a motor vehicle
without ever receiving a license as a class C misdemeanor.
[3] On February 16, 2016, the court held an initial hearing at which Bradfield
appeared pro se by video from the Howard County jail. The court confirmed
that Bradley understood he had the right to have an attorney. The court
advised Bradfield “[y]ou realize that it’s probably not in your best interest to
plead guilty, it’s probably in your best interest to have an attorney to help you
out,” and Bradfield stated “Sir, I, I’ve got a bad drug addiction, I just, I really to
need [sic] get help with my drug addiction sir.” Transcript at 10-11. The court
also asked Bradfield if he understood he would “give up [his] right to appeal
any decision that [the court] may make,” and Bradfield replied “Yes sir.” Id. at
12. Under Cause No. 12, the court accepted Bradfield’s plea of guilty and
found him guilty of theft as a class A misdemeanor. Under Cause No. 30, the
court accepted Bradfield’s plea of guilty and found him guilty of auto theft as a
level 6 felony, resisting law enforcement and possession of a synthetic drug as Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1604-CR-730 |November 30, 2016 Page 2 of 7 class A misdemeanors, and operating a motor vehicle without ever receiving a
license as a class C misdemeanor. 1
[4] On February 26, 2016, the trial court received a letter from Bradfield. The letter
stated in part:
When I went to my arraignment on 2-16-16 I waived my right to counsel and pled guilty. I was not thinking clearly at the time and would like to withdrawl [sic] the plea of guilty and ask the court to please appoint me a public defender to represent me on these matters.
Appellant’s Appendix, Volume 2, at 14. That same day, the court denied
Bradfield’s request.
[5] On March 22, 2016, the court held a sentencing hearing at which Bradfield
appeared pro se. The court noted that, on February 16, 2016, an initial hearing
was held on both cause numbers at which Bradfield indicated he wished to
waive his right to an attorney and to enter a plea of guilty. The court also noted
that it had advised him against pleading guilty without an attorney, that
Bradfield told the court he wished to plead guilty without an attorney, and that
the court found him guilty. The court acknowledged that, since then, Bradfield
had written a letter indicating that he had changed his mind and “wanted to
withdraw that and go back to get a public defender and plead not guilty,” and
1 At the initial hearing, the court stated that it would find Bradfield guilty of resisting law enforcement as a level 6 felony, but the court’s written judgment of conviction entered the conviction as a class A misdemeanor.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1604-CR-730 |November 30, 2016 Page 3 of 7 that the court denied his request. Transcript at 18. The court asked Bradfield if
he wished to make a statement, and Bradfield made a statement regarding his
use of spice and need for help. The court sentenced him under Cause No. 30 to
an aggregate term of two and one-half years with two years executed and the
remainder on supervised probation and under Cause No. 12 to one year to be
served consecutive to his sentence under Cause No. 30. The court advised
Bradfield that he had the right to appeal his sentence, and Bradfield indicated
he wished to appeal his sentence. 2
Discussion
[6] Bradfield maintains he was denied the right to counsel. Specifically, he argues
he requested the appointment of a public defender in February 2016, that
sentencing did not occur until March 22, 2016, that he had right to counsel at
least at sentencing, and that the trial court should not have summarily
dismissed his request. He argues the court should at least have held a hearing
to determine his eligibility for appointment of a public defender.
[7] The State responds that Bradfield did not make any request for counsel to be
assigned for sentencing and that “[w]hat Bradfield did request was to withdraw
his guilty plea and to go to trial with counsel.” Appellee’s Brief at 13. The
2 Bradfield initiated separate appeals from Cause No. 30 and Cause No. 12, which this court subsequently consolidated under this cause.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1604-CR-730 |November 30, 2016 Page 4 of 7 State also asserts Bradfield did not assert his right to counsel at his sentencing
hearing and that he could have done so.
[8] The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a
defendant the right of assistance of counsel to protect his fundamental right to a
fair trial. Puckett v. State, 843 N.E.2d 959, 965 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
Accordingly, a defendant has a right to counsel at all critical stages of a criminal
proceeding against him. Id. Further, it is well settled that sentencing is a
critical stage of the proceedings at which a defendant is entitled to
representation by counsel. Id.
[9] Correlative to the right to counsel is the right of a criminal defendant to waive
counsel and represent himself. Id. Self-representation requires a clear and
unequivocal request, along with a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to
counsel. Id. (citing Stroud v. State, 809 N.E.2d 274, 281 (Ind. 2004)).
Accordingly, if a defendant elects to represent himself, the trial court must
establish a record showing not only that the defendant was made aware of his
constitutional right to counsel, but also that the defendant was made aware of
the nature, extent and importance of the right and the consequences of waiving
it. Id.
[10] The record reveals that ten days after his initial hearing at which he pled guilty
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Nov 30 2016, 8:18 am Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this CLERK Memorandum Decision shall not be Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals regarded as precedent or cited before any and Tax Court
court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Donald E.C. Leicht Gregory F. Zoeller Kokomo, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Larry D. Allen Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ronnie Bradfield, November 30, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 34A02-1604-CR-730 v. Appeal from the Howard Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Brant Parry, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No. 34D02-1602-F6-30 34D02-1601-CM-12
Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1604-CR-730 |November 30, 2016 Page 1 of 7 [1] Ronnie Bradfield appeals his sentence and argues he was denied his right to
counsel. We reverse and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On January 15, 2016, the State charged Bradfield under two causes. First,
Bradfield was charged under cause number 34D02-1601-CM-12 (“Cause No.
12”) with theft as a class A misdemeanor. Second, he was charged under cause
number 34D02-1602-F6-30 (“Cause No. 30”) with auto theft and resisting law
enforcement as level 6 felonies, possession of a synthetic drug or synthetic drug
lookalike substance as a class A misdemeanor, and operating a motor vehicle
without ever receiving a license as a class C misdemeanor.
[3] On February 16, 2016, the court held an initial hearing at which Bradfield
appeared pro se by video from the Howard County jail. The court confirmed
that Bradley understood he had the right to have an attorney. The court
advised Bradfield “[y]ou realize that it’s probably not in your best interest to
plead guilty, it’s probably in your best interest to have an attorney to help you
out,” and Bradfield stated “Sir, I, I’ve got a bad drug addiction, I just, I really to
need [sic] get help with my drug addiction sir.” Transcript at 10-11. The court
also asked Bradfield if he understood he would “give up [his] right to appeal
any decision that [the court] may make,” and Bradfield replied “Yes sir.” Id. at
12. Under Cause No. 12, the court accepted Bradfield’s plea of guilty and
found him guilty of theft as a class A misdemeanor. Under Cause No. 30, the
court accepted Bradfield’s plea of guilty and found him guilty of auto theft as a
level 6 felony, resisting law enforcement and possession of a synthetic drug as Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1604-CR-730 |November 30, 2016 Page 2 of 7 class A misdemeanors, and operating a motor vehicle without ever receiving a
license as a class C misdemeanor. 1
[4] On February 26, 2016, the trial court received a letter from Bradfield. The letter
stated in part:
When I went to my arraignment on 2-16-16 I waived my right to counsel and pled guilty. I was not thinking clearly at the time and would like to withdrawl [sic] the plea of guilty and ask the court to please appoint me a public defender to represent me on these matters.
Appellant’s Appendix, Volume 2, at 14. That same day, the court denied
Bradfield’s request.
[5] On March 22, 2016, the court held a sentencing hearing at which Bradfield
appeared pro se. The court noted that, on February 16, 2016, an initial hearing
was held on both cause numbers at which Bradfield indicated he wished to
waive his right to an attorney and to enter a plea of guilty. The court also noted
that it had advised him against pleading guilty without an attorney, that
Bradfield told the court he wished to plead guilty without an attorney, and that
the court found him guilty. The court acknowledged that, since then, Bradfield
had written a letter indicating that he had changed his mind and “wanted to
withdraw that and go back to get a public defender and plead not guilty,” and
1 At the initial hearing, the court stated that it would find Bradfield guilty of resisting law enforcement as a level 6 felony, but the court’s written judgment of conviction entered the conviction as a class A misdemeanor.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1604-CR-730 |November 30, 2016 Page 3 of 7 that the court denied his request. Transcript at 18. The court asked Bradfield if
he wished to make a statement, and Bradfield made a statement regarding his
use of spice and need for help. The court sentenced him under Cause No. 30 to
an aggregate term of two and one-half years with two years executed and the
remainder on supervised probation and under Cause No. 12 to one year to be
served consecutive to his sentence under Cause No. 30. The court advised
Bradfield that he had the right to appeal his sentence, and Bradfield indicated
he wished to appeal his sentence. 2
Discussion
[6] Bradfield maintains he was denied the right to counsel. Specifically, he argues
he requested the appointment of a public defender in February 2016, that
sentencing did not occur until March 22, 2016, that he had right to counsel at
least at sentencing, and that the trial court should not have summarily
dismissed his request. He argues the court should at least have held a hearing
to determine his eligibility for appointment of a public defender.
[7] The State responds that Bradfield did not make any request for counsel to be
assigned for sentencing and that “[w]hat Bradfield did request was to withdraw
his guilty plea and to go to trial with counsel.” Appellee’s Brief at 13. The
2 Bradfield initiated separate appeals from Cause No. 30 and Cause No. 12, which this court subsequently consolidated under this cause.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1604-CR-730 |November 30, 2016 Page 4 of 7 State also asserts Bradfield did not assert his right to counsel at his sentencing
hearing and that he could have done so.
[8] The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a
defendant the right of assistance of counsel to protect his fundamental right to a
fair trial. Puckett v. State, 843 N.E.2d 959, 965 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
Accordingly, a defendant has a right to counsel at all critical stages of a criminal
proceeding against him. Id. Further, it is well settled that sentencing is a
critical stage of the proceedings at which a defendant is entitled to
representation by counsel. Id.
[9] Correlative to the right to counsel is the right of a criminal defendant to waive
counsel and represent himself. Id. Self-representation requires a clear and
unequivocal request, along with a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to
counsel. Id. (citing Stroud v. State, 809 N.E.2d 274, 281 (Ind. 2004)).
Accordingly, if a defendant elects to represent himself, the trial court must
establish a record showing not only that the defendant was made aware of his
constitutional right to counsel, but also that the defendant was made aware of
the nature, extent and importance of the right and the consequences of waiving
it. Id.
[10] The record reveals that ten days after his initial hearing at which he pled guilty
to all charges including two felonies, Bradfield sent a letter to the trial court
stating that he “would like to withdrawl [sic] the plea of guilty and ask the court
to please appoint me a public defender to represent me on these matters.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1604-CR-730 |November 30, 2016 Page 5 of 7 Appellant’s Appendix, Volume 2, at 14. While he asked to withdraw his guilty
plea, he also requested the court to appoint counsel to represent him. We
cannot conclude that his request for counsel to represent him “on these
matters,” id., did not include a request that he be represented at sentencing. In
any event, at the beginning of the sentencing hearing, the trial court noted that
Bradfield had requested that he be able to “go back to get a public defender and
plead not guilty,” Transcript at 18, and that the court had denied the request.
However, the court then proceeded to sentencing and did not make any inquiry
as to whether Bradfield desired for counsel to be appointed for sentencing or
wished to waive his right to counsel for sentencing.
[11] Given Bradfield’s request in his letter, the fact that the court did not ask
Bradfield whether he waived his right to counsel at the sentencing hearing, and
the importance of the right to counsel at every critical stage including
sentencing, we conclude that Bradfield did not knowingly and voluntarily
waive his right to be represented by counsel at his sentencing hearing. See
Puckett, 843 N.E.2d at 965 (holding the record was void of any evidence that the
defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be represented by
counsel at his sentencing hearing).
Conclusion
[12] For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and vacate Bradfield’s sentences, and
remand for a hearing to determine his eligibility for a public defender and for a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1604-CR-730 |November 30, 2016 Page 6 of 7 re-sentencing where Bradfield is afforded the opportunity to be represented by
counsel.
[13] Reversed and remanded.
Vaidik, C.J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1604-CR-730 |November 30, 2016 Page 7 of 7