Barnett v. State
| Decision Date | 19 January 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-980A249,1-980A249 |
| Parties | Jack D. BARNETT, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Mark W. Hunter, Brazil, for appellant (defendant below).
Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Janis L. Summers, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee (plaintiff below).
Jack D. Barnett (Barnett) appeals his conviction based on a guilty plea, of burglary, a class C felony. Barnett and two others burglarized the Custodius Construction Company in Brazil, Indiana. Barnett argues that the trial judge did not inform him of his rights, thereby making his plea involuntary, and that the court erred in modifying the plea bargaining agreement after accepting its terms. We affirm in part, and reverse in part.
Ind.Code 35-4.1-1-3 dictates what procedures the trial court must follow when accepting a guilty plea. Likewise, the court is required by Ind.Code 35-4.1-1-4 to determine the voluntariness of the plea. Barnett admits that the court meticulously followed the provisions of IC 35-4.1-1-3, but nonetheless argues that the plea was voluntary only in the sense that it was given in consideration for recommendations by the State. A review of the record reveals that the statutes were commendably followed. There was no error in this regard.
Barnett weaves into this argument that the court changed the plea bargain agreement by requiring Barnett to pay $2,000 restitution. The terms of the plea bargain agreement were that: the State would make no recommendation as to aggravating circumstances and recommend the standard five (5) year sentence; the sentence would run concurrently with any other sentence, and; Barnett would testify for the State as to all matters concerning a bank robbery. The agreement was accepted by the court on April 9, 1980. On April 10, 1980, Barnett was called back into court and informed that an omission occurred in the sentencing and that the sentence was to include $2,000 restitution to the victim of the burglary. 1 Barnett contends that this amounted to a change of the plea bargain agreement and an enhancement of his sentence without due process.
We need not reach these contentions, as the imposition of the restitution provision was fundamental error. Ind.Code 35-50-1-1 states that the court shall fix the penalty of, and sentence a person convicted of an offense. The criteria for imposing a sentence is governed by Ind.Code...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Niece v. State
...a trial judge is required to act within statutorily prescribed limits. Rife v. State, (1981) Ind.App., 424 N.E.2d 188; Barnett v. State, (1981) Ind.App., 414 N.E.2d 965. Thus, a sentence which is contrary to, or violative of, the penalty mandated by the applicable statute is an illegal sent......
-
McCloud v. State
...discretion. We agree with the State. McCloud relies on Rife v. State, (1981) Ind.App., 424 N.E .2d 188, 192, and Barnett v. State, (1981) Ind.App., 414 N.E.2d 965, 966. However, those cases only held restitution cannot be ordered as a condition of a sentence for a crime, where the sentencin......
-
Douglas v. State
...While the judge is vested with broad discretion in sentencing, he must act within statutorily prescribed limits. Barnett v. State, (1981) Ind.App., 414 N.E.2d 965. The judge must set forth particularized findings supporting any aggravating or mitigating circumstances when a departure from t......
-
Smith v. State
...Prior to the passage of IC 35-50-5-3, this court reversed restitution orders issued with an executed sentence. See, e.g., Barnett v. State (1981), Ind., 414 N.E.2d 965; Rife v. State (1981), Ind.App., 424 N.E.2d ...