Pittman v. State

234 N.E.3d 874

Joe Chuck PITTMAN, Appellant-Defendant

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff

Court of Appeals Case No. 23A-CR-710

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Filed April 25, 2024

Publication Ordered May 14, 2024

Appeal from the Lake Superior Court, The Honorable Natalie Bokota, Judge, Trial Court Cause No. 45G02-1903-MR-9

Attorney for Appellant: R. Brian Woodward, Appellate Public Defender, Crown Point, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Megan M. Smith, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

Bradford, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] On January 9, 2019, Joe Chuck Pittman and a group of cohorts committed various acts of attempted burglary, attempted robbery, and burglary. During the attempted robbery, which involved four different victims, Alayna Ortiz was shot and killed. Pittman was subsequently convicted of felony murder, three counts of Level 3 felony attempted robbery, Level 4 felony attempted burglary, and Level 4 felony burglary. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in denying his right to self-representation and abused its discretion in admitting evidence of gang affiliation. He also contends that his convictions violate Indiana’s prohibition against double jeopardy. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In early 2019, William Hawkins sold marijuana out of a house on Madison Street ("the House") in Gary. Hawkins would travel to California, purchase marijuana, and ship the marijuana to the House in vacuum sealed bags. Hawkins had several friends sell the marijuana on his behalf, including Donald Shields and Giovante Galloway. Shields lived in the House with his girlfriend, Chyanne Miller.

[3] As of January of 2019, Galloway owed Hawkins $1600.00 for marijuana that Hawkins had advanced to Galloway, and Hawkins had refused to advance Galloway any more marijuana. Knowing that Hawkins had recently mailed a shipment of marijuana to the House, Galloway reached out to his uncle, Juarez Rogers, to see if Rogers would help Galloway break into the House to steal the marijuana. Rogers, in turn, had recruited Pittman, and the three men then met and agreed on a plan to break into the House.

[4] On January 9, 2019, Galloway, Rogers, and Pittman, together with Elrice Williams and Joshua Wright, drove to the House. They attempted to open the back door, but something near the door fell over and made a loud noise. That noise was promptly followed by the sound of gunshots coming from inside the House. The five men "scatter[ed]" but, after some time, met back up at their vehicle. Tr. Vol. V p. 36.

[5] Meanwhile, Shields had called Hawkins and asked him to pick him and Miller up and to take them to a different residence. Hawkins arrived a short time later with his girlfriend, Alayna Ortiz. Hawkins was driving Ortiz’s vehicle. Miller was carrying a duffel bag when she and Shields exited the House and got into Ortiz’s vehicle. Pittman and his cohorts believed that the duffel bag had contained the marijuana and money, so they followed Ortiz’s vehicle.

[6] Hawkins drove to an apartment complex and parked in a spot that had a wooden post in front of it. Wright, who was driving the other vehicle, immediately pulled in behind Hawkins, blocking him in. Williams and Pittman "jump[ed] out" of their vehicle, with Williams taking the driver’s side and Pittman the passenger’s side. Tr. Vol. V p. 49. Both men were armed. From the back seat, Shields yelled at Hawkins to "drive," and Hawkins put the car into gear and then powered over the wooden post. Tr. Vol. IV p. 125. As Hawkins did so, Williams fired his gun through the rear driver’s side window. The bullet struck Ortiz in the head and killed her.

[7] Hawkins found local law enforcement nearby and drove to them for assistance. The five men went back to the House and completed their burglary of it. Upon returning to the House, Pittman and his cohorts ransacked the House and "grabb[ed] what they" could, including Hawkins’s Xbox; two televisions, one of which was an eighty-inch television and the other was a smaller one; ammunition; and a book bag. Tr. Vol. VI p. 126. They also stole ten to fifteen pounds of leaf marijuana and 200 vape cartridges, which despite their belief that Shields and Miller had taken the drugs with them, had been left in the House after all. Galloway later informed law enforcement of what had happened and who had been involved.

[8] The State subsequently charged Pittman with felony murder, Level 2 felony attempted robbery resulting in serious bodily injury, four counts of Level 3 felony attempted armed robbery, Level 4 felony attempted burglary, and Level 4 felony burglary. The State also filed a use-of-firearm enhancement.

[9] On April 6, 2021, Pittman requested permission to represent himself at trial. During a hearing that was held the next day, Pittman’s then-counsel informed the trial court that Pittman had no trust in him, he had no influence over Pittman, and there was no chance of a reconciliation of his relationship with Pittman. The trial court allowed Pittman’s then-counsel to withdraw his appearance and Pittman indicated that he wished to proceed "[p]ropria persona" and represent himself. Apr. 7 Hr. Tr. p. 10.

[10] Pittman indicated that he understood the potential penalties he was facing. He further indicated that he was "not sure" if he had ever been declared incompetent but that he had been diagnosed with depression and as being bipolar. Apr. 7 Hr. Tr. p. 14. Pittman admitted that he had been prescribed medication in jail but that he had thrown it away and had not taken it. Pittman further admitted that he had never read the Indiana Rules of Evidence or Rules of Court and could name only one potential defense at trial, i.e., challenging the sufficiency of the State’s evidence. Pittman indicated that he understood that he would not receive any special treatment or advice from the trial court if he represented himself.

[11] Pittman outlined his knowledge of the legal system, citing to the "Court Survival Guide" and indicated that law school was eight to twelve years. Apr. 7 Hr. Tr. p. 23. He further indicated that he wanted to represent himself because

I feel like this case is about me and pertaining to me. So I feel like I should be the one representing me. Because there is stuff my attorney is not going to probably say for me or do for me, that he hasn’t done for me, that I’d be willing to say for myself, and that I’d be willing to do for myself.

Apr. 7 Hr. Tr. p. 24. Pittman went on to state that he wanted to represent himself because

I found out what propria persona means. And like I said to you before, there’s no law that requires me to have an attorney or a public defender. In fact, I am a [sic] attorney myself. I could be that…. Based off what I’m telling you, I’m pretty sure you have knowledge of propria persona or pro per…. I’m pretty sure you have those. You see what I’m saying. And like I said before, there’s no law that requires me to have an attorney or a public defender.

Apr. 7 Hr. Tr. p. 25.

[12] The trial court denied Pittman’s request, finding "[b]ased on all the information that I’ve heard today concerning your medical status and condition, your knowledge of the law, your education, and all other matters, that you do not have the ability to intelligently and competently represent yourself." Apr. 7 Hr. Tr. p. 28. The trial court indicated that it would reentertain Pittman’s request if Pittman still wished to represent himself after a different attorney was appointed to represent him but stated

to be very honest with you, sir, I’m concerned about your ability to represent yourself considering your behavior over the time that the case has been in front of the Court, the repeated refusals to come to court, the fact that you’ve been prescribed medication that you are refusing to take by your own admission, you are disposing of it without notice to anyone else. These are all matters of grave concern.

Apr. 7 Hr. Tr. pp. 28–29. Pittman renewed his motion for self-representation on April 26, 2021. Following a hearing on April 28, 2021, the trial court granted Pittman’s motion and appointed standby counsel.

[13] During an August 27, 2021 pretrial conference, Pittman and the trial court engaged in the following exchange:

THE COURT: All right. So under the law, it is my duty to ask you some questions to make sure that you are, in fact, ready for trial. So, first of all, you know, as I’ve told you before, that you are going to be held, under the law, you’re held to the same standards as a licensed professional attorney. Do you accept that, sir?

THE DEFENDANT: No, ma’am.

THE COURT: You do not. Can you articulate or explain why?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma’am…. Well, I don’t feel like I should be held to the same standards as a licensed attorney because I’m representing myself propria persona…. Which allows – qualifies me to be an attorney according to the Black Laws Dictionary (sic). I’m establishing my sovereign citizen rights in these legal matters without being mislead [sic], trapped, or over charged by a licensed defense attorney who would only bind me into the very system which is dedicated to making me pay. There’s no law which requires me to hire a licensed attorney.

THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Pittman. I’m just a little bit confuse [sic] by the last thing you said. I’m not asking you about whether you want to have an attorney represent you. I asked you if you accept the state of the law which is, if you represent yourself as I’ve allowed you to do so far and found you may, do you accept that you are, in fact, held to same standards as a professional attorney?

THE DEFENDANT: And once again, I say, no…. Because I said no the first time, and I say, no, because I’m not pro se. I’m propria persona which is another

--

THE COURT: Yes. I haven’t said that you’re pro se, sir. I’m asking if you accept that you’re held to the same standards as a professional attorney.

THE DEFENDANT: And I keep...