Case Title: Rodriquez Anderson
v.
State of Indiana

Citation: 

Docket Number: 21S-CR-00028

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2021-01-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 21S-CR-28 
Rodriquez Anderson, 
Appellant-Defendant, 
–v– 
State of Indiana, 
Appellee-Plaintiff. 
Decided: January 26, 2021 
Appeal from the Clark Circuit Court 
No. 10C02-1808-F2-33 
The Honorable Bradley B. Jacobs, Judge 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals 
No. 19A-CR-2098 
Per Curiam Opinion 
Chief Justice Rush and Justices David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Jan 26 2021, 11:12 am
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S-CR-28 | January 26, 2021 
Page 2 of 3 
Per Curiam. 
A jury found Rodriquez Anderson guilty of Level 2 felony conspiracy 
to deal methamphetamine and Class B misdemeanor possession of 
marijuana. Anderson was sentenced to 25 years for the felony and one 
year for the misdemeanor, with the sentences to run concurrently. The 
Court of Appeals affirmed in part and remanded in part, remanding only 
for the trial court to correct its improper sentence for Anderson’s Class B 
misdemeanor conviction. We grant transfer and summarily affirm the 
Court of Appeals decision. See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A). 
Our purpose in granting transfer is to clarify that once counsel has been 
appointed, even if counsel has not yet entered an appearance, a defendant 
speaks to the court through counsel. When a defendant files a pro se 
motion after counsel has been appointed to represent him, such as 
Anderson’s request for an early trial under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(B), the 
trial court is not required to consider the defendant’s pro se request. We 
articulated this point in Underwood v. State, 722 N.E.2d 828, 832 (Ind. 2000), 
and affirm it here. Before counsel’s appointment, a trial court must 
consider a defendant’s pro se motion, like a request for an early trial.  
After counsel’s appointment, this consideration is left to the trial court’s 
discretion. 
Here, counsel was appointed for Anderson at the initial hearing. 
Shortly thereafter, Anderson mailed the trial court a document requesting 
a speedy trial. At a subsequent hearing, the trial court explained that 
Anderson’s “request [was] not an actual Speedy Trial request,” because it 
was filed after counsel had been appointed. Tr. Vol. II, p. 4. Though 
Anderson’s counsel was not present at this hearing, the trial court advised 
Anderson that he could discuss with his attorney whether seeking a 
speedy trial would be beneficial and that his “attorney actually makes the 
formal request.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 6. Because counsel had been appointed for 
Anderson, the trial court was not required to consider his pro se motion 
and therefore acted within its discretion by disregarding it.  
The Court of Appeals decision is summarily affirmed. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S-CR-28 | January 26, 2021 
Page 3 of 3 
Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur. 
A TT O R N E Y F O R  A PP E LLA N T  
Christopher Sturgeon 
Jeffersonville, Indiana 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  AP P EL LE E  
Theodore E. Rokita 
Attorney General of Indiana 
Tyler G. Banks 
Supervising Deputy Attorney General 
Indianapolis, Indiana