Antuan Harney v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A05-1705-CR-1145
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 28, 2017Background
- Harney was charged in Sept. 2015 with multiple drug offenses and arrested Sept. 21, 2015; retained private counsel (Burns) who filed appearance Sept. 23, 2015.
- Burns moved to withdraw on Nov. 24, 2015; a hearing was set for Dec. 7, 2015; on Dec. 3 Harney sent a pro se letter requesting a speedy trial under Crim. R. 4(B).
- On Dec. 4 the trial court struck Harney’s pro se speedy-trial filing because he was represented by counsel; Burns’s withdrawal was granted Dec. 7 and the court appointed new counsel.
- The State obtained a continuance of the originally scheduled trial; Harney’s counsel later filed a Crim. R. 4(B) motion for discharge, which the trial court denied after a hearing.
- Harney also obtained relief under Crim. R. 4(A) and was released from custody prior to trial; a jury later convicted him and he was sentenced to an aggregate 12 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by striking Harney’s pro se Crim. R. 4(B) motion | The court properly struck the pro se motion because Harney was represented by counsel and did not clearly and unequivocally invoke the right to self-representation | Harney argued the court should have accepted his pro se speedy-trial request | Court did not abuse its discretion; strike affirmed |
| Whether the trial court clearly erred in denying Harney’s Crim. R. 4(B) motion for discharge | Denial was proper because no valid Crim. R. 4(B) motion was timely pending — the pro se filing was struck, so discharge was not required | Harney contended he was entitled to discharge for not being brought to trial within 70 days after his (pro se) motion | No clear error; denial of discharge affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Austin v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1027 (Ind. 2013) (overview of Crim. R. 4’s purpose and exceptions to the 70‑day discharge rule)
- Kindred v. State, 521 N.E.2d 320 (Ind. 1988) (trial court may accept or strike pro se filings when defendant is represented)
- Schepers v. State, 980 N.E.2d 883 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (once counsel is appointed, defendant speaks through counsel; waiver/requirements for self-representation)
- Stroud v. State, 809 N.E.2d 274 (Ind. 2004) (a request to proceed pro se must be clear and unequivocal and made within a reasonable time)
- Jenkins v. State, 809 N.E.2d 361 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (Crim. R. 4(B) discharge analysis and requirements)