Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1944 | January 23, 2020 Page 1 of 3

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Mark K. Leeman

Leeman Law Office and

Cass County Public Defender

Logansport, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

George P. Sherman

Supervising Deputy

Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Brianna Simmons,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

January 23, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-1944

Appeal from the Cass Superior 

Court

The Honorable Richard A. 

Maughmer, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

09D02-1903-CM-180

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1944 | January 23, 2020 Page 2 of 3

[1] On March 12, 2019, the State charged Simmons with Class A misdemeanor 

theft. At the initial hearing, Simmons told the trial court that she planned to 

hire an attorney. At a subsequent pretrial hearing, Simmons stated that her 

boyfriend was working on hiring an attorney for her; the trial court noted that 

her trial was scheduled for May 6 and that if she appeared without an attorney, 

the prosecutor would likely object to a continuance.

[2] Simmons’s trial took place on May 6, 2019. The trial court asked if she had 

retained an attorney and Simmons indicated that she had not; the trial court 

immediately indicated that she would proceed pro se. Tr. Vol. II p. 13. 

Simmons asked for more time to get an attorney, explaining that she had lost 

her job in the process of trying to hire one and that court staff had told her to 

explain her situation to the trial court on the date of her trial. Id. at 14. The 

trial court did not respond to Simmons. Instead, it turned to the prosecutor, 

stating, “if you want to proceed with your case, you may.” Id. at 15. At no 

point did the trial court advise Simmons about the dangers of selfrepresentation. Ultimately, the trial court found Simmons guilty and sentenced 

her to one year of incarceration.

[3] Before a defendant may waive her right to counsel and proceed pro se, the trial 

court must determine that the defendant’s waiver of counsel is knowing, 

voluntary, and intelligent. Jones v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1132, 1138 (Ind. 2003). As 

part of that process, the trial court is required to advise the defendant of the 

dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. Poynter v. State, 749 N.E.2d 

1122, 1128 (Ind. 2001) (holding that record did not show a knowing, voluntary, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1944 | January 23, 2020 Page 3 of 3

and intelligent waiver where defendant appeared at trial without an attorney 

after previously stating he would hire an attorney).

[4] Here, the trial court refused to even engage in a conversation with Simmons 

about her lack of counsel. It took no steps to ensure that she was waiving 

counsel—and ignored the fact that she explicitly stated that she wanted an 

attorney. The trial court uttered not one sentence in an attempt to advise 

Simmons of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. Pursuant to 

Poynter, we can only conclude that Simmons’s “waiver” of counsel was not 

knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The State concedes as much, agreeing that 

Simmons’s conviction should be vacated and the matter remanded for a new 

trial.

[5] The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded for further 

proceedings.

Riley, J., and Brown, J., concur.