Bartzis v. State, 3-1185A328

Decision Date26 January 1987
Docket NumberNo. 3-1185A328,3-1185A328
PartiesDemetre Christo BARTZIS, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

John B. Wilson, Jr., Nashville, Jim J. Brugh, Logansport, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

HOFFMAN, Judge.

Demetre Christo Bartzis appeals his conviction of Class C felony child molesting. On appeal Bartzis raises one issue: whether the trial court erred by vacating Bartzis' guilty plea and revoking its acceptance of a plea bargain recommendation.

On December 12, 1984 the trial court held a hearing at which it considered Bartzis' motion to change his plea to guilty from the automatic not guilty plea that was entered at his arraignment. Concomitant with the change of plea the prosecution and defense jointly filed a written plea agreement. The plea agreement called for Bartzis to plead guilty to one count of Class C felony child molesting in exchange for the prosecutor's agreement to dismiss a second count of child molesting and for an agreement that Bartzis would be sentenced to a suspended four-year term, subject to Bartzis receiving counseling.

At the December hearing the trial court examined Bartzis extensively on the factual basis for the guilty plea, on whether the guilty plea was voluntary and intelligent, and on whether he was knowingly waiving his constitutional rights. The trial court then discussed the specific terms of the plea agreement with Bartzis and explained the consequences of each part of the agreement. Once the trial court was assured that Bartzis possessed and understood all pertinent information, the trial court made the following finding:

"Okay. The Court now finds that the defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which he has entered a plea of guilty, that he understands the possible sentence thereunder, that the plea of guilty was freely and voluntarily made, that the plea is accurate and there is a basis in fact for the defendant's offered plea of guilty.

The Court now finds that the defendant is guilty of child molest, a Class C felony, Court accepts the plea of guilty and finds the defendant guilty of said charge;

Court accepts the plea bargain agreement, will set sentencing for January, either 24th or 31st...."

The sentencing hearing was ultimately held on February 7, 1985. Instead of proceeding with formal sentencing as planned, the trial court conducted a second hearing on whether it would accept the plea bargain. In the two intervening months the trial court had received an unfavorable presentence report and at the second hearing the victim's mother recanted her earlier approval of the plea agreement.

The presentence report concluded that probation was inappropriate. This conclusion was apparently based on the probation officer's subjective feelings about the charged crime, the mother's change in attitude, and a prior unrelated offense that Bartzis had committed. The only information in the record regarding the prior offense is that it occurred in 1972 and that the charge was "Theft By Deception." The charge apparently involved an unpaid check that arose in the course of Bartzis' business. The attorneys apparently assumed that the offense was a felony; however, this is unclear from both the record and the statute. 1

The victim's mother appeared at the hearing and testified that she was unhappy with her earlier approval of the plea agreement. She said that she had felt pressured into acquiessence when the prosecutor had originally presented the proposal. She concluded that despite the legal difficulties that the case's unusual facts presented, she preferred to take a chance on no conviction, rather than have Bartzis receive probation.

The trial court also heard from the prosecution and the defense, both of whom argued that the plea agreement should stand. The State pointed out that the agreement had been offered after nearly a year of investigatory effort and that the nature of the case made the agreement the most desirable result. The defense argued that all parties, including the court, had understood the circumstances that led to the plea agreement and that it would be improper for the trial court to vacate the already agreed upon plea.

The trial court, citing only the mother's testimony, rescinded its acceptance of the plea agreement and vacated Bartzis' guilty plea. In response to defense arguments, the judge...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Hooker v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • December 5, 2003
    ...power of the trial court to order." (statutory citation omitted) (emphasis added). This court followed Griffin in Bartzis v. State, 502 N.E.2d 1347, 1349 (Ind.Ct.App.1987), when we held that where a trial court had accepted the defendant's guilty plea and then "unequivocally accepted the pl......
  • Benson v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • December 30, 2002
    ...agreement ... and entered Judgment against the Defendant." See Reffett v. State, 571 N.E.2d 1227, 1230 (Ind.1991); Bartzis v. State, 502 N.E.2d 1347, 1349 (Ind.Ct.App.1987).6 Because we determine that the evidence leads unerringly to the conclusion that the trial court accepted Benson's gui......
  • Buck v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • November 14, 1991
    ...a plea agreement it accepts. IC 35-35-3-3(e) (1988); see also Reffett v. State (1991), Ind., 571 N.E.2d 1227, 1229; Bartzis v. State (1987), Ind.App., 502 N.E.2d 1347, 1349; Disney v. State (1982), Ind.App., 441 N.E.2d 489, 494. However, when a plea agreement involves probation only conditi......
  • Reffett v. State, 69A01-9003-CR-95
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • August 6, 1990
    ...sentencing than in post-trial sentencing. As Judge Garrard aptly stated in his concurring opinion in Bartzis v. State (1987), Ind.App., 502 N.E.2d 1347 (Garrard, P.J., concurring), "IC 35-35-3-3 contemplates that in felony cases the plea agreement will be filed with the court and presentenc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT