Gilmore v. State
953 N.E.2d 583
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Gilmore was charged with murder in 2005 and initially found indigent, resulting in court-appointed counsel.
- Over time, Gilmore caused disputes and filed pro se actions, leading to multiple attorney withdrawals.
- Public defenders and Jefferson County counsel were appointed but withdrew due to breakdowns in communication and relationship with Gilmore.
- On September 1, 2010, the trial court found Gilmore no longer indigent and that he had waived his right to counsel by obstreperous conduct.
- The court appointed appellate counsel to pursue an interlocutory appeal, and the Court of Appeals reviews the order on indigency and waiver.”
- The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, vacating the order finding non-indigency and waiver, and directing further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding non-indigency | Gilmore argues no substantial financial change since charging; court misapplied factors. | Gilmore contends prior indigency status retained; conduct alone should not negate indigency. | Abuse of discretion; no substantial change in finances; indigency should persist. |
| Whether a defendant can waive or forfeit right to counsel by conduct | Gilmore maintains right to counsel cannot be waived by conduct. | Court may find waiver/forfeiture based on obstreperous conduct with warning. | Waiver by conduct not established; remand for proper Faretta-like inquiry and warnings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fitzgerald v. State, 254 Ind. 39, 257 N.E.2d 305 (Ind. 1970) (Ind. 1970) (trial court should consider alternatives before proceeding without counsel; right to counsel is fundamental)
- United States v. Goldberg, 67 F.3d 1092 (3d Cir. 1995) (3d Cir. 1995) (distinguishes waiver, forfeiture, and waiver by conduct; warns against automatic self-representation)
- United States v. Irorere, 228 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2000) (7th Cir. 2000) (waiver of right to counsel where multiple attorneys withdraw and defendant advised on risks of self-representation)
- United States v. Hoskins, 243 F.3d 407 (7th Cir. 2001) (7th Cir. 2001) (adopts Faretta-style warning standards for knowing and intelligent waiver)
- Poynter v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1122 (Ind. 2001) (Ind. 2001) (adopts Hoskins analysis; voluntary conduct plus lack of warning may affect waiver assessment)