BARBEE v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Travion Antione Barbee appeals the trial court's denial of his request to proceed pro se. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 10, 2023, Caycie Stantz and two of her children went to a park with Joseph Hughes. Stantz's two-year-old child played on the playground. Stantz noticed Barbee, whom she had never met, sitting on a bench near the playground. At some point, Barbee grabbed a book bag and walked out of the park. Later, Stantz “ended up sitting the [sic] bench to put [her child's] shoes on.” Transcript Volume II at 39. Barbee “ran up on” Stantz, “yelled ․ you crazy white bitch,” appeared “very angry,” “grabbed the back of [her] hair,” and stabbed her in the neck. Id. at 40-41. Hughes “ended up running up on [Barbee] and tackling him off of [Stantz].” Id. at 41. Barbee stabbed Hughes and ran away. Stantz sustained a stab wound to her neck and underwent surgery to repair a carotid artery. Hughes sustained knife wounds to his leg, buttocks, and finger.

[3] The State charged Barbee with two counts of attempted murder as level 1 felonies, aggravated battery as a level 3 felony, battery resulting in serious bodily injury as a level 5 felony, two counts of battery by means of a deadly weapon as level 5 felonies, and battery resulting in moderate bodily injury as a level 6 felony. It also alleged that Barbee was an habitual offender. Barbee waived his right to a jury trial, and the court set a bench trial for August 8, 2024. On July 31, 2024, Barbee's counsel filed a motion for a status hearing stating that Barbee did not meet with her and, without his cooperation, it was difficult to prepare for trial. That same day, Barbee, pro se, filed a motion to appoint new counsel.

[4] On August 2, 2024, the court held a status hearing. Barbee indicated his dissatisfaction with his counsel. The court noted the serious charges against Barbee and that defense counsel was an experienced trial attorney and would remain Barbee's counsel. Barbee stated, “I don't want her to represent me. I wanna have another hearing to see if I could represent myself, then.” Id. at 9. The court advised Barbee, “[defense counsel] stays on the case at this point in time. If you want to represent yourself, you need to file a written motion, and then we'll address it at that time,” and Barbee indicated that he understood. Id.

[5] On August 8, 2024, Barbee's counsel requested a continuance based on her being ill, and the court granted a continuance and discussed a new trial date. Barbee stated, “I would like to make a[n] oral motion for reconsideration of appointment of new counsel” and indicated his dissatisfaction with his counsel. Id. at 15. He stated, “I've written her numerous times, called her numerous times, and one instance when she, after she let me know she wasn't gonna defend me in the manner that I ․ wanted her to, then I stopped communicating with her.” Id. The court denied Barbee's motion for new counsel and set the trial for August 14, 2024.

[6] The court commenced the bench trial on August 14, 2024. Barbee stated, “I would like to represent myself” and “I am prepared today.” Id. at 20. The court stated, “I told you two weeks ago to file a written request if you intended to represent yourself and I've not received any written request until, as of today.” Id. Upon questioning by the court, Barbee indicated that he had never represented himself before, that his education included a GED and “[l]ike a year in college,” that he understood the gravity of the matter, that he did not have experience examining and cross-examining witnesses, that he “filed lawsuits before,” that he was confident he could recognize when to make objections, that he never studied criminal law, that he understood Indiana's Rules of Evidence “[i]f they pertain to [his] case,” and that he had not previously participated in a bench trial. Id. at 20-22. The court denied Barbee's request to represent himself and noted that the charges included attempted murder, that Barbee did not file a written request, and that his request was “a last-minute motion” and untimely. Id. at 23. Following the trial, the court found Barbee guilty as charged. A jury found him to be an habitual offender. The court entered judgment of conviction on the two counts of attempted murder.

Discussion

[7] Barbee asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to represent himself at his bench trial. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to counsel before he may be tried, convicted, and punished, and this protection also encompasses an affirmative right for a defendant to represent himself in a criminal case. Hopper v. State, 957 N.E.2d 613, 617 (Ind. 2011).

[8] The Indiana Supreme Court has observed that a request to proceed pro se is a waiver of the right to counsel and that consequently there are several requirements to invoking the right of self-representation successfully. Stroud v. State, 809 N.E.2d 274, 279 (Ind. 2004). A defendant's request must be clear and unequivocal, and it must be made within a reasonable time prior to the first day of trial. Id. In addition, a defendant's choice to proceed pro se must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Id. The Court also held that, even after a defendant has asserted the right to self-representation, the right may be waived through conduct indicating that the defendant is vacillating on the issue or has abandoned the request. See id. at 280-281. The length of a reasonable time prior to trial depends on the facts of the case. See Russell v. State, 270 Ind. 55, 63-64, 383 N.E.2d 309, 315 (1978). “The more complicated the case, and the more involved the pre-trial proceedings, the earlier a ‘reasonable’ assertion will naturally be, and vice-versa.” Id. at 64, 383 N.E.2d at 315. “[W]e will most likely uphold the trial judge's decision to honor or deny the defendant's request to represent himself where the judge has made the proper inquiries and conveyed the proper information, and reaches a reasoned conclusion about the defendant's understanding of his rights and voluntariness of his decision.” Poynter v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1122, 1128 (Ind. 2001) (citing United States v. Hoskins, 243 F.3d 407, 410 (7th Cir. 2001)).

[9] The record reveals that, at the August 2, 2024 status hearing, Barbee indicated his dissatisfaction with his counsel and, after the court declined to appoint other defense counsel, Barbee stated, “I wanna have another hearing to see if I could represent myself.” Transcript Volume II at 9. The court advised Barbee that, if he desired to represent himself, he was required to file a written motion, and Barbee indicated that he understood. On August 8, 2024, the day the trial was scheduled to begin, Barbee's counsel moved for a continuance, and Barbee expressed dissatisfaction with his counsel and asked the court to reconsider appointing other counsel. Barbee did not request to represent himself at that time. The court set the trial for August 14, 2024.

[10] On August 14, 2024, the day his bench trial was scheduled to commence, Barbee orally requested to represent himself. The court noted that, two weeks earlier, it had advised Barbee to file a written request if he desired to represent himself and that he had not filed any such request. The court questioned Barbee about his ability and preparedness to represent himself. Barbee acknowledged that he had never represented himself before. The court asked his “education level,” and he replied “GED with some college” and “[l]ike a year in college.” Id. at 20. The court stated that an attorney “can assist you by investigating your case, interrogating witnesses, finding favorable witnesses or obtaining any testimony,” “attorneys can explain the charges and lesser included offenses to you, they can gather documents, other kinds of written evidence,” “they can prepare and file motions before trial,” and “they can examine and cross examine witnesses,” and asked “[d]o you have any experience in doing any of that,” and Barbee replied “[n]o.” Id. at 21.

[11] The court further asked, “[h]ave you ever filed any motions ․ in any cases before for yourself,” and Barbee replied “I filed lawsuits before,” “I filed a motion in this matter action for appointment of new counsel, which was denied,” and “I was familiar with the (unintelligible) hearing to see if I could represent myself cause that would be my other option if I wasn't able to receive new counsel.” Id. at 21-22. When asked, “[w]hat skills or knowledge do you believe that you have that would prepare [you] ․ to represent yourself in this attempted murder case,” Barbee stated, “I have familiarized myself with my case. I'm confident that I can recognize time, when it's time to make objections and to even seek continuing objections if need be.” Id. at 22. Barbee indicated that he never studied criminal law. When asked, “[d]o you understand ․ Indiana's Rules of Evidence,” he responded “[i]f they pertain to my case, yes” and “[a]s if, like I'm trying to get, I would like to submit everything, if I'm granted self-representation in according with Indiana Evidence Rule 801 (8)(b) I, as far as it goes to submitting police investigative reports which would be admissible because they would have been offered by an accused in a criminal case, such as myself.” Id. Barbee indicated that he had never participated in a bench trial before.

[12] In denying Barbee's request to proceed pro se, the court noted the magnitude of the charges which included attempted murder, that Barbee never filed a written request as directed, and that his request was untimely. Barbee's request was made on the day his bench trial commenced. The record does not demonstrate that Barbee unequivocally requested to represent himself within a reasonable time prior to his trial. See Stroud, 809 N.E.2d at 280 (trial court did not err in denying defendant's request to represent himself a week before trial for murder and noting trial judge was in best position to evaluate defendant's sincerity and clarity of request) (citing Russell, 270 Ind. at 64, 383 N.E.2d at 315 (noting impact of relative complexity of case)).

[13] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's ruling.

[14] Affirmed.

Brown, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.