Ricketts v. State

108 N.E.3d 416

Ronnie RICKETTS, Jr., Appellant-Defendant,

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-444

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Filed August 20, 2018

Attorneys for Appellant: Scott L. Barnhart, Brooke Smith, Keffer Barnhart LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, James B. Martin, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

Bradford, Judge

Case Summary

[1] In March of 2017, Ronnie Ricketts, Jr., located his domestic partner Sarah Metcalf eating dinner with two men at an Evansville mission, one of whom Ricketts had told Metcalf not to see anymore. Ricketts told the two men that they were dead, retrieved two handguns from his vehicle parked outside, and shot out a window of the mission when he found the door barred. The State charged Ricketts with Level 2 felony burglary. In late November and early December of 2017, Ricketts requested that he be allowed to dismiss his public defender and continue pro se . After Ricketts explained to the trial court that he had been diagnosed with several mental illnesses and that his medications were no longer effective, the trial court denied Ricketts's request to proceed pro se . A jury convicted Ricketts as charged, and the trial court sentenced him to seventeen and one-half years of incarceration. Ricketts contends that the trial court erred in denying his request to represent himself and that his sentence is inappropriately harsh. Because we disagree with both contentions, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On March 2, 2017, Maurice Huffman, Huffman's mother, James Smith, and Metcalf were eating dinner together in the dining hall at the Evansville Rescue Mission. There were "a lot" of children volunteering in the Rescue Mission that day. Tr. Vol. II p. 235. Metcalf had had sexual intercourse with Smith on a single occasion, and Ricketts, the father of Metcalf's infant daughter and with whom she had been romantically involved for approximately four years, had previously told Metcalf not to associate with Smith anymore. As the quartet was eating, Ricketts came into the hall, called Metcalf a "lying whore[,]" and told Huffman and Smith that if they did not leave her alone "[they] would be dead." Tr. Vol. II pp. 57, 176. According to Smith, Ricketts entered the hall; said "this is how it's f-ing going to be" to Metcalf; and told Smith and Huffman, "you are both going to die now[.]" Tr. Vol. II p. 67.

[3] Metcalf followed Ricketts outside as he retrieved two handguns from his vehicle. Despite Metcalf begging him to stop, Ricketts tried to reenter the Rescue Mission, and, when he discovered that he could not reenter through the door, shot out a window and stepped through. Smith ran to the kitchen and Hoffman ran out the back door and hid behind a dumpster. Ricketts searched for Smith and Hoffman without success, returned to his vehicle, and drove off. After a vehicular pursuit, police apprehended Ricketts in front of his home.

[4] Ricketts told police after his arrest that he and Metcalf had been together for four years and that he had gone to the mission to see if she was lying to him. Ricketts told an interviewer that

[t]he first time when I went in, and I seen her with 'em, and I got pissed. I went back out to the truck got [the handguns]. They shut me out with the door—the wooden doors, so I shot the window out. I didn't shoot at nobody. I didn't hurt nobody. I shot the window out. Kick—pushed it through, and went through it and went after 'em.

State's Ex. 40. The interviewing detective asked Ricketts if he told both Smith and Huffman that he was going to kill them, to which Ricketts responded, "You're damn right I did." State's Ex. 40. When the detective asked, "if you would have found them would you have shot them?", Ricketts replied, "Oh, yeah." The detective then asked or stated, "You–you wanted to kill them[,]" to which Ricketts replied, "Yeah." State's Ex. 40. On March 6, 2017, the State charged Ricketts with Level 2 felony burglary.

[5] At a hearing on November 28, 2017, Ricketts told the trial court that he wished to proceed pro se because trial counsel had agreed to delays in the case and had been unsuccessful in having his bail reduced. The trial court denied Ricketts's request to proceed pro se . At a hearing on December 4, 2017, Ricketts again indicated that he wanted to proceed pro se . Ricketts's trial counsel indicated that Ricketts wanted to be added to the trial court's calendar because he wanted "to make a record that he wishes to proceed pro-se[,]" the hearing the previous week had been before a substitute judge, and "there's a stronger record that needs to be laid." Tr. Vol. II p. 22. The following exchange occurred:

THE COURT: Okay you do not want [trial counsel] to represent you?

[Ricketts]: No, sir.

THE COURT: Okay do you want to tell me why?

[Ricketts]: Not really a reason. [J]ust that she hasn't been doing nothing. I've been in here for nine months. I've had [a] heart attack, and my health issues are pretty bad, and my other stuff's going on and—

THE COURT: Okay.

[Ricketts]: I don't think she's been doing what she should do to try and get me out.

THE COURT: Well it's not up to her whether you get out. That's up to the court. Uh, have you ever represented yourself before?

[Ricketts]: No, sir. This is the first time I've ever been in jail.

THE COURT: Okay. Well the—do you have any familiarity with the rules of evidence or the trial procedures, court procedures anything like that?

[Ricketts]: Not really. We got the law books in here though.

THE COURT: Do you understand that it's almost always unwise to represent yourself?

[Ricketts]: Yes, like I said, it's my first time, sir. I'm not—.

THE COURT: Okay. That throughout the trial the State of Indiana will be represented by an experienced legal counsel. I'm not sure in your case who that is, but someone who has legal training, and that they will, um, be they are representative. And that will be held—uh, I—the Court will be required, as a matter of law, to hold you to the same standards. I can't let you violate the rules of evidence, or trial procedure, or anything in that way—nature. You're going to have to present your case according to the law. You understand that?

[Ricketts]: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Um, that I can't give you any other special indulgence. I can't give you—change your sentence because you represented yourself. You can't get a more serious sentence, but you also can't get a lesser sentence. Do you understand that?

[Ricketts]: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Lawyers can—have been trained on how to question witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, gather evidence, objective [sic ] evidence, identify evidence that might be harmful, or illegally obtained by the government, and move[ ] to suppress or exclude that evidence in ways that I'm pretty confident you're not capable of right now. Do you understand that?

[Ricketts]: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Um, have you ever—have you ever been found mentally incompetent for any reason?

[Ricketts]: I got out of the military on mental health issues.

THE COURT: Okay what—what generally speaking what were they?

[Ricketts]: Uh, depression, personality disorder, and PTSD.

THE COURT: Do you currently take medication for that?

[Ricketts]: Yes, sir. I've been seeing a therapist—a psychiatrist for—well off and on for twenty years. But I've also been seeing them at the VA for the last six years.

THE COURT: Okay.

[Ricketts]: On a regular basis.

THE COURT: All right. Does any of that medication interfere with your thinking?

[Ricketts]: It don't—it hasn't been helping, the stuff I've been taking. I told my therapist before this happened that my medicine wasn't working and I was needing to get something stronger, and then this happened.

THE COURT: Okay.

[Ricketts]: Also on pain medication and about six other different medications. Anxiety medication, and stuff like that too.

THE COURT: Is that going to interfere with your ability to, uh, represent yourself? Concentrate on the case? Do the research that's necessary? Look up, you know, the relevant law and facts, and—?

[Ricketts]: It could sir. I'm not for sure. Like, I said I've never had to do anything like this before.

THE COURT: Well if there's a possibility that that's going to interfere, how are you going to do that if you're representing yourself?

[Ricketts]: I have no idea sir.

THE COURT: Okay.

[Ricketts]: I will just have to do the best I can.

THE COURT: What makes you think you—um, how far did you go in school?

[Ricketts]: I graduate[d] high school and took a couple years of automotive school at Ivy Tech College.

THE COURT: Okay can you—okay. And how long were you in the arm—were you in the army?

[Ricketts]: Yes sir. I was Army Military Police for three years before I got out on the medical, and then I got back and went into the Indiana National Guard for six years and got out in 2004.

THE COURT: Okay. Have you ever seen a final argument or an opening statement given in a criminal case?

[Ricketts]: We did it in high school once, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Have you—

[Ricketts]: It's been a while back.

THE COURT: Have you ever been in a courtroom for any reason?

[Ricketts]: No sir.

THE COURT: All right I'm going to deny your request Mr. Ricketts. I'm not confident you can represent yourself adequately. You're entitled to a fair trial, uh, it's been my experience that most people who represent themselves just screw up their case big time. That generally speaking, would not be enough. If that was all there was to it I'd probably let you go ahead and represent yourself, but the mental problems, the emotional issues, those kind of things will intensify the pressure as a trial gets closer. Um, trials are [an] immensely [ ] nerve-racking experience for everyone involved, and that will not help whatever mental condition or emotional problems that you are suffering from. I'm afraid that you would—might for lack of a better term, come un-come undone during the trial and then end up either

...