Court Opinion

ID: 9709952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:58:17.829043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:53.001978
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. While acknowledging that the advisements given Leonard were sufficient under the decisions of our supreme court, the majority concludes that they were nevertheless insufficient under the well-intentioned but overbroad statements contained in Dowell v. State (1990), Ind.App., 557 N.E.2d 1063.
It does so by asserting that, "The issue of whether Leonard was competent to stand trial, let alone proceed in his own defense, was raised before trial but never explored." Additionally, it characterizes Leonard's presentation at the hearing conducted on his petition to proceed pro se as "nearly incoherent." I find the latter assertion a gross overstatement. As to the former, Leonard's counsel suggested by motion the possibility of Leonard's incompetence, and the court appointed two psychiatrists to examine him. They did, and each filed a rather comprehensive report in which he concluded that Leonard was competent when he committed the offense and was competent to stand trial and assist counsel. No further suggestion of incompetence was raised before trial.
To me this case is but another illustration of the tensions created by Faretta v. California (1975), 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562. By this I do not suggest that I disagree with Faretta, or an accused's right to self-representation, however foolhardy that may be. But at some point individuals should bear the responsibility of their own actions. After extensive inquiry Leonard chose to represent himself. Suppose the court had made the inquiry the majority demands. On the basis of the record it certainly would not have found Leonard incompetent. Thus, under Faret-to it could not have refused him the right to proceed without counsel, or in reality, with only standby counsel,. Nothing was to be gained by the additional burden the majority seeks to impose.
I believe that both the court and Leonard's counsel engaged in a thorough and extensive effort to advise him of the perils in the course he was choosing. He voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly chose to represent himself. I believe no more was required.
I would affirm.