Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A trial court did not err when it found a man charged with stalking and invasion of privacy forfeited his right to self-representation, the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed in an interlocutory appeal.
Billy Luke, who was charged in May 2022, filed a motion with the Dearborn Circuit Court to proceed pro se. Luke accused the trial court judge of “uncivilized and unruly behavior” against him in a prior cause and of being “belligerently angry in an unhinged manner,” among other things.
He also accused county judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officers of operating “in criminal concert with each other over the years to violate Billy Luke’s most basic rights.”
Luke also filed a witness list with 135 people, including President Joe Biden and Gov. Eric Holcomb.
At his initial hearing, Luke reiterated his desire to proceed pro se, and the court informed Luke that if he did that, he would have to comply with the court’s rulings. Luke stated he would do so.
The court then took judicial notice of the prior cause Luke referenced, where the same judge found he had forfeited his right to self-representation after filing multiple motions that had “no legitimate purpose.”
About a week after the initial hearing, Luke filed more than 400 pages of documents with the court, the relevance and purpose of which weren’t clear.
The documents did, however, include disparaging comments about the judge and apparent threats.
The court then found Luke had forfeited his right to self-representation and appointed him counsel, concluding Luke’s filings included “threatening” language and that it was “clear that his purpose in self-representation is to attack the Court System and all those involved who he can bring into his proposed conspiracy theory,” among other findings.
Luke appealed, but the Court of Appeals ruled the trial court’s conclusion was supported by the record.
The relevance of the 400-plus pages of documents “is not clear,” the opinion says.
“What is clear, however, is that Luke’s submissions reflect dilatory tactics and an intent to distort the State’s Level 4 felony stalking and Level 6 felony invasion of privacy charges against him,” the opinion says.
Luke argued the trial court erred because none of his submissions were in violation of a court order and that the trial court’s judgment was based on what the court “fears” he might do because of prior cases.
The Court of Appeals disagreed.
“Luke’s abuse of his pro se status, whether it was in violation of a standing order or not, is a sufficient basis upon which a court may terminate the right to self-representation,” the opinion says.
Judge Paul Mathias wrote the opinion. Judges Nancy Vaidik and Rudolph Pyle concurred.
The opinion is Billy Gene Luke v. State of Indiana, 23A-CR-50.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.