Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1604-CR-730 |November 30, 2016 Page 1 of 7

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

Donald E.C. Leicht

Kokomo, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Larry D. Allen

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Ronnie Bradfield,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff. 

November 30, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No. 

34A02-1604-CR-730

Appeal from the Howard Circuit

Court 

The Honorable Brant Parry, Judge

Trial Court Cause No. 

34D02-1602-F6-30

34D02-1601-CM-12

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1604-CR-730 |November 30, 2016 Page 2 of 7

[1] Ronnie Bradfield appeals his sentence and argues he was denied his right to 

counsel. We reverse and remand. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 15, 2016, the State charged Bradfield under two causes. First, 

Bradfield was charged under cause number 34D02-1601-CM-12 (“Cause No. 

12”) with theft as a class A misdemeanor. Second, he was charged under cause 

number 34D02-1602-F6-30 (“Cause No. 30”) with auto theft and resisting law 

enforcement as level 6 felonies, possession of a synthetic drug or synthetic drug 

lookalike substance as a class A misdemeanor, and operating a motor vehicle 

without ever receiving a license as a class C misdemeanor. 

[3] On February 16, 2016, the court held an initial hearing at which Bradfield 

appeared pro se by video from the Howard County jail. The court confirmed 

that Bradley understood he had the right to have an attorney. The court 

advised Bradfield “[y]ou realize that it’s probably not in your best interest to 

plead guilty, it’s probably in your best interest to have an attorney to help you 

out,” and Bradfield stated “Sir, I, I’ve got a bad drug addiction, I just, I really to 

need [sic] get help with my drug addiction sir.” Transcript at 10-11. The court 

also asked Bradfield if he understood he would “give up [his] right to appeal 

any decision that [the court] may make,” and Bradfield replied “Yes sir.” Id. at 

12. Under Cause No. 12, the court accepted Bradfield’s plea of guilty and 

found him guilty of theft as a class A misdemeanor. Under Cause No. 30, the 

court accepted Bradfield’s plea of guilty and found him guilty of auto theft as a 

level 6 felony, resisting law enforcement and possession of a synthetic drug as 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1604-CR-730 |November 30, 2016 Page 3 of 7

class A misdemeanors, and operating a motor vehicle without ever receiving a 

license as a class C misdemeanor.1

 

[4] On February 26, 2016, the trial court received a letter from Bradfield. The letter 

stated in part: 

When I went to my arraignment on 2-16-16 I waived my right to 

counsel and pled guilty. I was not thinking clearly at the time 

and would like to withdrawl [sic] the plea of guilty and ask the 

court to please appoint me a public defender to represent me on 

these matters. 

Appellant’s Appendix, Volume 2, at 14. That same day, the court denied 

Bradfield’s request. 

[5] On March 22, 2016, the court held a sentencing hearing at which Bradfield 

appeared pro se. The court noted that, on February 16, 2016, an initial hearing 

was held on both cause numbers at which Bradfield indicated he wished to 

waive his right to an attorney and to enter a plea of guilty. The court also noted 

that it had advised him against pleading guilty without an attorney, that

Bradfield told the court he wished to plead guilty without an attorney, and that 

the court found him guilty. The court acknowledged that, since then, Bradfield 

had written a letter indicating that he had changed his mind and “wanted to 

withdraw that and go back to get a public defender and plead not guilty,” and 

 

1 At the initial hearing, the court stated that it would find Bradfield guilty of resisting law enforcement as a 

level 6 felony, but the court’s written judgment of conviction entered the conviction as a class A 

misdemeanor. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1604-CR-730 |November 30, 2016 Page 4 of 7

that the court denied his request. Transcript at 18. The court asked Bradfield if 

he wished to make a statement, and Bradfield made a statement regarding his 

use of spice and need for help. The court sentenced him under Cause No. 30 to 

an aggregate term of two and one-half years with two years executed and the 

remainder on supervised probation and under Cause No. 12 to one year to be 

served consecutive to his sentence under Cause No. 30. The court advised 

Bradfield that he had the right to appeal his sentence, and Bradfield indicated 

he wished to appeal his sentence.2

 

Discussion

[6] Bradfield maintains he was denied the right to counsel. Specifically, he argues 

he requested the appointment of a public defender in February 2016, that 

sentencing did not occur until March 22, 2016, that he had right to counsel at 

least at sentencing, and that the trial court should not have summarily 

dismissed his request. He argues the court should at least have held a hearing 

to determine his eligibility for appointment of a public defender. 

[7] The State responds that Bradfield did not make any request for counsel to be 

assigned for sentencing and that “[w]hat Bradfield did request was to withdraw 

his guilty plea and to go to trial with counsel.” Appellee’s Brief at 13. The 

 

2 Bradfield initiated separate appeals from Cause No. 30 and Cause No. 12, which this court subsequently 

consolidated under this cause. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1604-CR-730 |November 30, 2016 Page 5 of 7

State also asserts Bradfield did not assert his right to counsel at his sentencing 

hearing and that he could have done so. 

[8] The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a 

defendant the right of assistance of counsel to protect his fundamental right to a 

fair trial. Puckett v. State, 843 N.E.2d 959, 965 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). 

Accordingly, a defendant has a right to counsel at all critical stages of a criminal 

proceeding against him. Id. Further, it is well settled that sentencing is a 

critical stage of the proceedings at which a defendant is entitled to 

representation by counsel. Id. 

[9] Correlative to the right to counsel is the right of a criminal defendant to waive 

counsel and represent himself. Id. Self-representation requires a clear and 

unequivocal request, along with a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to 

counsel. Id. (citing Stroud v. State, 809 N.E.2d 274, 281 (Ind. 2004)). 

Accordingly, if a defendant elects to represent himself, the trial court must 

establish a record showing not only that the defendant was made aware of his 

constitutional right to counsel, but also that the defendant was made aware of 

the nature, extent and importance of the right and the consequences of waiving 

it. Id.

[10] The record reveals that ten days after his initial hearing at which he pled guilty 

to all charges including two felonies, Bradfield sent a letter to the trial court 

stating that he “would like to withdrawl [sic] the plea of guilty and ask the court 

to please appoint me a public defender to represent me on these matters.” 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1604-CR-730 |November 30, 2016 Page 6 of 7

Appellant’s Appendix, Volume 2, at 14. While he asked to withdraw his guilty 

plea, he also requested the court to appoint counsel to represent him. We 

cannot conclude that his request for counsel to represent him “on these 

matters,” id., did not include a request that he be represented at sentencing. In 

any event, at the beginning of the sentencing hearing, the trial court noted that 

Bradfield had requested that he be able to “go back to get a public defender and 

plead not guilty,” Transcript at 18, and that the court had denied the request. 

However, the court then proceeded to sentencing and did not make any inquiry 

as to whether Bradfield desired for counsel to be appointed for sentencing or 

wished to waive his right to counsel for sentencing. 

[11] Given Bradfield’s request in his letter, the fact that the court did not ask 

Bradfield whether he waived his right to counsel at the sentencing hearing, and 

the importance of the right to counsel at every critical stage including 

sentencing, we conclude that Bradfield did not knowingly and voluntarily 

waive his right to be represented by counsel at his sentencing hearing. See 

Puckett, 843 N.E.2d at 965 (holding the record was void of any evidence that the 

defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be represented by 

counsel at his sentencing hearing). 

Conclusion

[12] For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and vacate Bradfield’s sentences, and 

remand for a hearing to determine his eligibility for a public defender and for a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1604-CR-730 |November 30, 2016 Page 7 of 7

re-sentencing where Bradfield is afforded the opportunity to be represented by 

counsel.

[13] Reversed and remanded. 

Vaidik, C.J., and Bradford, J., concur.