Timothy Schepers v. State of Indiana
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 629
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Schepers was charged with drug offenses and neglect of a dependent (class C felony) on May 9, 2011.
- The trial court appointed a public defender; J. Patrick Biggs filed appearance and a jury-trial demand.
- On June 6, 2011, Schepers pro se moved to remove Biggs and demanded a jury trial within 70 days.
- The trial court later appointed Andrew Adams as a special public defender; Adams was contracted to represent Schepers.
- The court scheduled a jury trial for late October 2011, outside the 70-day rule, and Schepers sought dismissal; the court denied and the claim was appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding no Rule 4 violation due to ongoing representation and Schepers’ acquiescence to the later date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 4 violated by delay beyond 70 days | Schepers argues early trial rights were violated | Delay was caused by the defense and court calendar congestion | No Rule 4 violation; delay supported by acquiescence and representation facts. |
| Whether Schepers validly asserted the right to self-representation | Schepers sought self-representation via pro se filings | No clear, unequivocal request for self-representation | No valid invocation of self-representation; hybrid representation not established. |
| Effect of appointing a special public defender on speedy-trial rights | Appointed counsel should not impact Rule 4 timeline | Counsel appointment maintains representation and time counts | Appointment and continued counsel did not trigger Rule 4 violation. |
| Whether pro se motions amounted to hybrid representation | Pro se motions indicated desire to proceed without counsel | Counsel remained appointed; motions did not convert to self-representation | Not hybrid representation; proper denial of dismissal. |
| Whether Schepers acquiesced to delay outside 70 days | Delay should be attributed to State or court | Schepers acquiesced to late trial date | Acquiescence defeats speedy-trial discharge risk; claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 809 N.E.2d 361 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (appointment dates control for early-trial motions; hybrid representation rejected)
- Fletcher v. State, 959 N.E.2d 922 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (distinguished Jenkins re appointment vs. appearance timing)
- State v. Delph, 875 N.E.2d 416 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (acquiescence to delay outside Rule 4 not charged to State)