Barker v. State
Decision Date | 21 July 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 32A01-0311-PC-444.,32A01-0311-PC-444. |
Citation | 812 N.E.2d 158 |
Parties | Roland BARKER, Appellant-Petitioner, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Respondent. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Brian J. Johnson, Hostetter & Ohara, Brownsburg, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Ryan D. Johanningsmeier, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Roland Barker appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Barker raises one issue, which we restate as whether the post-conviction properly concluded that Barker's guilty plea was entered into knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. We affirm.
The relevant facts follow. On May 7, 1998, the trial court conducted a guilty plea hearing where Barker and eleven other defendants were present. The trial court gave the following en masse advisement of rights:
Transcript of Plea Hearing at 10-11. The trial court then questioned the defendants individually and addressed Barker as follows:
Id. at 15-16. The State then laid out the factual basis for Barker's guilty plea to operating while intoxicated as a class D felony,1 and the trial court addressed Barker as follows:
Barker did not file a direct appeal, but, on June 27, 2003, Barker filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he did not enter into his guilty plea knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently because the trial court failed to advise him of his rights. After a hearing, the post-conviction court issued an order denying Barker's petition for post-conviction relief, and the order provided that:
Appellant's Appendix at 10-14 (internal citations omitted).
The sole issue is whether the post-conviction court properly concluded that Barker's guilty plea was entered into knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. In order to prevail on his petition for post-conviction relief, Barker had to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to relief. Canaan v. State, 683 N.E.2d 227, 228-29 (Ind.1997),reh'g denied, cert. denied, 524 U.S. 906, 118 S.Ct. 2064, 141 L.Ed.2d 141 (1998). Having been denied relief, however, Barker is in the position of one who appeals a negative judgment, and the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief will not be reversed unless the evidence is undisputed and leads inevitably to an opposite conclusion. Bobbitt v. State, 725 N.E.2d 521, 522 (Ind.Ct.App.2000).
When a defendant enters into a guilty plea, the record must indicate that the defendant knew of and understood his rights. Snowe v. State, 533 N.E.2d 613, 616 (Ind.Ct.App.1989). "The trial court must preserve the colloquy on the record where the trial court determines for itself, without surmise, that a defendant has been informed of each right he is about to waive." Id. In the absence of a record that clearly demonstrates that the necessary specifics were discussed, we will not defer to the trial court's ability to determine the question of voluntariness. Griffin v. State, 617 N.E.2d 550, 552 (Ind.Ct.App.1993). Before a guilty plea may be considered voluntary and intelligent, the record must disclose that the defendant knew he was waiving...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wallace v. State
...Rule 1(5). Wallace's petition for post-conviction relief was denied. Therefore, he appeals a negative judgment. See Barker v. State, 812 N.E.2d 158, 162 (Ind.Ct.App.2004), trans. denied. The trial court's denial of a petition for post conviction relief will not be reversed unless Wallace pr......
-
Mcdillon v. Northern Ind. Public Serv. Co., 45S04-0412-CV-528.
... ... Language found in State ex rel. Sargent & Lundy v. Vigo Superior Court, 260 Ind. 472, 474, 296 N.E.2d 785, 786 (1973), trans. not sought, expresses the same idea: "Trial ... ...
-
Buckrop v. State, No. 32A01-0605-PC-178 (Ind. App. 12/12/2006)
... ... Buckrop's petition for post-conviction relief was denied. Therefore, he appeals a negative judgment. Wallace v. State, 836 N.E.2d 985, 1000 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005); see Barker ... v. State, 812 N.E.2d 158, 162 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. "'We accept the post-conviction court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but we do not have to give deference to the post-conviction court's conclusions [thereon].'" Wallace, 836 N.E.2d at 1000 (quoting ... ...
-
McDILLON v. Northern Indiana Public Serv. Co.
... ... Dill v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1230, 1232 (Ind.2001). In reviewing a trial court's decision to give a tendered jury instruction, we consider (1) whether the instruction ... ...