Joshua Givens v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
25A03-1708-CR-1760
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jan 11, 2018Background
- Defendant Joshua Givens was charged with Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe and initially appointed a public defender.
- Givens pleaded guilty in March 2017, later moved to withdraw his plea, and the court granted withdrawal.
- Givens filed a motion to proceed pro se and dismiss his public defender; at a June 12 hearing the court questioned him about risks of self-representation and he affirmed his choice.
- A bench trial was held July 6; Givens represented himself, received discovery (police report) and viewed body-cam footage before trial, cross-examined the sole witness, and made legal argument.
- Givens was found guilty and elected to proceed immediately to sentencing; the court imposed 2.5 years with no suspension, a sentence Givens agreed was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Givens) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Givens validly waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily proceeded pro se | The court’s colloquy and the record show Givens understood risks, had relevant background and experience, and voluntarily waived counsel | Waiver was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because the court’s advisement was brief, did not explain advantages of counsel, and did not probe why he wanted to proceed pro se | Waiver was valid; no Sixth Amendment violation found |
| Whether the court should have re-advised Givens of his right to counsel before sentencing | The initial waiver remained in effect; Givens confirmed he wanted to proceed and even asked to sentence immediately | The court erred by not readvising him of the right to counsel at sentencing | No error; waiver continued through sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1132 (Ind. 2003) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel and right to self-representation principles)
- Poynter v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1122 (Ind. 2001) (four-factor framework for assessing knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel)
- Miller v. State, 789 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (standard of review for waiver of counsel determined de novo)
- Drake v. State, 895 N.E.2d 389 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (recognizing implicit right of self-representation under Sixth Amendment)