Alford v. State

• Citation: 35 Ind.Dec. 588,294 N.E.2d 168,155 Ind.App. 592
• Decision Date: 27 March 1973
• Docket Number: No. 3--672A21,3--672A21
• Parties: Orville Richard ALFORD, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
• Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana

Page 168

294 N.E.2d 168

155 Ind.App. 592

Orville Richard ALFORD, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).

No. 3--672A21.

Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District.

March 27, 1973.

Daniel A. Roby, Wyss, McCain, Mochamer, Roby, Ryan & Myers, Fort Wayne, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Stephen J. Cuthbert, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

STATON, Judge.

NATURE OF THE APPEAL: Orville Richard Alford, hereinafter referred to as Alford, pled guilty on September 9, 1968 to the offense of second degree burglary. ¹ Before Alford was sentenced by the Allen Circuit Court, he left Indiana for Kentucky where he was convicted for a second offense and sentenced to the Kentucky State Penitentiary. During Alford's incarceration in Kentucky, he filed a motion for speedy trial and motion to dismiss pending charge with the Allen Circuit Court. A writ of mandate for discharge filed with the Supreme Court of Indiana was denied too. After serving three years in the Kentucky State Penitentiary, Alford was returned to Indiana on a detainer warrant and sentenced by the Allen Circuit Court on March 20, 1972 to not less than two (2) nor more than five (5) years. On the day of sentencing, Alford filed a petition for discharge on the grounds that the State of Indiana should have returned him to Indiana for sentencing earlier so that his Indiana and Kentucky sentences would run concurrently. It is from the overruling of this petition that Alford appeals.

We affirm the Allen Circuit Court's judgment denying Alford's petition for discharge in our opinion which follows:

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS: The record discloses the following detailed sequence of events climaxing in the sentencing of Orville Richard Alford and ultimately in this appeal:

                 1965
                 Nov. 18, 1965     --    Affidavit for second degree burglary
                                         filed against Orville Richard Alford
                 1968
                 Aug. 12, 1968     --    After many continuances at Defendant
                                         Alford's request, arraignment set for
                 Sept. 9, 1968     --    Sept. 9, 1968.  Alford pleads guilty to
                                         second degree burglary; sentencing set
                                         for Oct. 7, 1968
                 Oct. 4, 1968      --    Pre-commitment report filed
                 Oct. 7, 1968      --    Sentencing deferred until Jan. 6
                                         1969 at Alford's request.
                 1969
                 Jan. 6, 1969      --    Sentencing deferred until Jan. 13,
                                         1969 at Alford's request.
                 Jan. 13, 1969     --    First detainer warrant issued to
                                         the State of Kentucky.
                 Jan. 15, 1969     --    Alford fails to appear and his
                                         bondsman given 10 days to
                                         produce him.
                 1970
                 Feb. 26, 1970     --    Alford files motion for speedy
                                         trial pro se.
                * Mar. 2, 1970     --    Alford appears in court and cause
                                         continued to Mar. 16, 1970.
                * Mar. 16, 1970    --    Alford appears in court and cause
                                         deferred to Mar. 23, 1970 at
                                         Alford's request.
                 Mar. 31, 1970     --    Alford files motion to dismiss
                                         pending charge again pro se.
                * April 6, 1970    --    Alford appears in court and cause
                                         deferred until April 20, 1970 at
                                         Alford's request.
                 April 13, 1970    --    Alford's motion to dismiss denied
                                         by the Allen Circuit Court.
                 April 20, 1970    --    Alford appears by counsel and
                                         cause continued until his return
                                         to the jurisdiction.
                 Nov. 9, 1970      --    Supreme Court of Indiana denies
                                         Alford's writ of mandate for
                                         dismissal of charge.
                 1972
                 Feb. 22, 1972     --    Second detainer warrant issued
                                         to the State of Kentucky.
                 Mar. 6, 1972      --    Alford appears in court and cause
                                         continued until Mar. 20, 1972 to
                                         allow filing of a motion to
                                         dismiss.
                 Mar. 20, 1972     --    Alford files petition for discharge
                                         which is denied; Alford sentenced
                                         to not less than 2 nor more than
                                         5 years.
                Note: Although the record states that Alford appeared in court in person, this is
                      controverted by the fact that he was incarcerated in the Kentucky State
                      Penitentiary from January, 1969 to March, 1972.
                

Alford timely filed his motion to correct errors on March 27, 1972 which raises the issues discussed below.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: The sole contention of error is that the trial court erred in overruling Alford's petition for discharge on the grounds that Alford was entitled to have his Indiana and Kentucky sentences run concurrently; therefore, the delay in sentencing was error. This contention of error raises the following issues for our consideration:

1. Does Alford have a right to serve the sentence for his Indiana criminal offense and the sentence for his Kentucky criminal offense concurrently?

2. Was sentencing without delay mandatory upon the Allen Circuit Court?

We find that the petition for discharge was properly denied for the reasons set out in our STATEMENT ON THE LAW section below, and we affirm the trial court's judgment.

STATEMENT OF THE LAW: We preface our discussion of the above issues by noting that Alford contends that Rule CR. 4(A) and (B) of the Indiana Rules of Criminal Procedure, and cases relating to a right to speedy trial are applicable to sentencing. We reject this contention. Rules 4(A) and (B) refer only to defendants who are in jail awaiting trial and who are, therefore, presumed innocent. Alford had pled guilty. The trial court had accepted his plea and found him guilty. Alford stood convicted of second degree burglary. He was only awaiting sentencing when he was convicted of a second offense in Kentucky and sentenced to the Kentucky State Penitentiary. In the recently decided Hart v. State (1973), Ind., 292 N.E.2d 814, our Supreme Court expressed the necessity for a speedy trial and the resultant prejudice to defendant as follows:

'. . . It is often impossible to clearly specify exactly the prejudice resulting from the denial of a speedy trial. Memories fade and evidence may be lost, but if the accused's investigation does not begin until months or years after the crime, he may never know what was lost. Such a procedure also acts as an incentive for the State to prosecute its cases promptly . . ..'

Once the defendant has pled guilty and is convicted of the offense, the possibility of lost evidence or fading memories of witnesses is no longer a factor. Although Alford had not been sentenced, his right to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea or to file a petition for post conviction relief under P.C. 1 of the Indiana Rules of Procedure were in no way impaired.

ISSUE ONE:

Does Alford have a right to serve the sentence for his Indiana criminal offense and the sentence for his Kentucky criminal offense concurrently?

There is no constitutional right to serve concurrent sentences for different crimes in Indiana. The Indiana Supreme Court in Bewley v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 652, 654, 220 N.E.2d 612 held that:

'. . . (T)here is no constitutional right on the part of a criminal to serve his sentences concurrently for various crimes. To so hold would minimize the penalty for the...