« Ind. Courts - Watch CJ today at 2:30 EST | Main | Ind. Law - "Prosecutor files Alcohol charges against Bisard" »

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Ind. Decisions - A Supreme Court Order re a potential rehearing in Hopper

The ILB has received a copy of this Jan. 10, 2011 Order in the case of David Hopper v. State, signed by CJ Shepard. It reads:

On September 28, 2010, we issued our opinion in the above referenced matter. On October 27, 2010, Appellee timely filed a Petition for Rehearing. Appellant did not file a Response.

To assist the Court in its consideration of the Appellee's Petition for Rehearing, the Court REQUESTS the Appellant to file a Response on or before February 11,2011.

Also, the Court INVITES any interested amicus curiae, regardless of the party with which it is substantively aligned, to file its motion to appear and tender its proposed amicus brief on or before February 11, 2011. See Ind. Appellate Rule 41. This matter will be set for oral argument by separate order in due course.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to counsel of record. The Clerk is also directed to send a copy of this order to Susan Carpenter, Public Defender of Indiana; David Cook, Chair, Indiana Public Defenders Council; and Stephen Johnson, Executive Director, Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council.

ILB readers likely will recall the 3-2 opinion in David Hopper v. State of Indiana, where then-Justice Boehm wrote the majority opinion, and CJ Shepard wrote an impassioned dissent,. Some quotes from the opinion:
[J Boehm] [W]e exercise our supervisory power to require that in the future a defendant expressing a desire to proceed without counsel is to be advised of the dangers of going to trial as required by Faretta, and also be informed that an attorney is usually more experienced in plea negotiations and better able to identify and evaluate any potential defenses and evidentiary or procedural problems in the prosecution’s case. Such an advisement will require minimal additional time or effort at the initial hearing, and may encourage defendants to accept counsel.

[CJ Shepard] If indeed the advisement is likely to be minimal, does it tell offenders anything they didn’t learn from television? How many repeat offenders will avoid the penalties they have otherwise earned because the warning was omitted or was found inadequate with the benefit of hindsight? How many victims will these repeat offenders create? That society, or even offenders, will be better off is far from clear.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 12, 2011 01:25 PM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions