Bates v. State, 485S134
| Decision Date | 05 January 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 485S134,485S134 |
| Parties | Bobby Joe BATES, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Bev Cummings, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Theodore E. Hansen, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant Bobby Joe Bates pled guilty to criminal deviate conduct, a class A felony, Ind. Code Sec. 35-42-4-2 (Burns 1979 Repl.), and two counts of battery, a class C felony, Ind. Code Sec. 35-42-2-1 (Burns 1979 Repl.). The trial court sentenced him to fifty years imprisonment for criminal deviate conduct to be served consecutive to concurrent terms of five years for the battery counts. Bates filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, which the trial court denied. He appeals that denial, raising two issues:
1) Whether the trial court erred in accepting his plea to class A criminal deviate conduct because Bates failed to admit he committed the crime while armed with a deadly weapon, an element necessary to elevate the charge to a class A felony, and
2) Whether Bates' guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because his counsel incorrectly advised him that he was eligible for a habitual offender charge.
Bates challenges acceptance of his guilty plea to criminal deviate conduct as a class A felony. Unlawful deviate conduct is a class A felony when committed by threat of deadly force or use of a deadly weapon. Ind. Code Sec. 35-42-4-2. Because he failed to admit this element at the guilty plea hearing, Bates contends that his guilty plea was invalid.
Bates advances two arguments in support of his contention. He alleges that the record does not provide a sufficient factual basis for his guilty plea. A trial court should refrain from entering judgment upon a plea of guilty "unless it is satisfied from its examination that there is a factual basis for the plea." Ind.Code Sec. 35-4.1-1-4(b) (Burns 1979 Repl) (now Ind Code Sec. 35-35-1-3(b) (Burns 1985 Repl.)) Bates also alleges that his failure to admit his use of a deadly weapon amounts to a protestation of innocence. The rule announced in Ross v. State (1983), Ind., 456 N.E.2d 420, 421, provides that "a judge may not accept a plea of guilty when the defendant both pleads guilty and maintains his innocence at the same time."
The petitioner in post-conviction proceedings bears the burden to prove grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. The post-conviction court is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. We will reverse only where the evidence is without conflict and leads exclusively to a conclusion contrary to that reached by the post-conviction court. Silvers v. State (1986), Ind., 499 N.E.2d 249.
At the guilty plea hearing, Judge Platt explained the elements of class A criminal deviate conduct to Bates, who indicated that he understood the elements of the crime. Bates also indicated that he understood the definition of a deadly weapon and the State's burden to prove all the elements of class A deviate conduct beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge explained the crime charged, and Bates indicated he understood the nature of the crime charged.
The judge asked,
Do you also understand that by entering a plea of guilty you admit each and every fact necessary to convict you of the charge, and when you say 'I am guilty of the offense' you in essence say, that on or about July the 17th, 1981, you did force [the victim] to submit to a deviate sexual conduct act of the penetration of his anus by your penis and that you did so by threatening him with an ink pen, to stab him in the head. Do you understand that?
Bates responded, "Yes sir." Defense counsel then interjected that Bates was "basically making this as a best interest plea."
After Bates supplied the factual basis for the battery convictions, the judge asked him to relate the circumstances of the criminal deviate conduct. Defense counsel moved admission of the police report, consisting of the victim's statement, as the factual basis for Bates' plea. The judge admitted the report and summarized the facts to Bates.
The judge specifically asked Bates if there was any form of sexual contact; Bates admitted that there was. The judge also asked specifically if penetration occurred; Bates admitted it did. The judge then pointed out that, if the case went to trial, the determinative issue would be the use of force. Bates indicated that he understood. The judge indicated that the victim's statement included every element necessary to convict Bates of class A deviate conduct. Bates again indicated that he understood.
The judge then said, Bates answered, "Yes sir."
A sufficient factual basis can be established by the defendant's admission that he understands the nature of the crime and understands that his guilty plea is an admission that he committed the crime. Lombardo v. State (1981), Ind., 429 N.E.2d 243. Bates indicated he understood the charges and that his guilty plea was an admission of the charges.
A factual basis may also be established by the defendant's acknowledgment of the truth of a statement which contains the facts constituting the crime charged. Silvers, 499 N.E.2d at 252. Here, Bates made admissions based on the victim's statement. Though he was never asked to admit the truth of the entire statement, Bates did not deny it.
Bates argues that the victim's statement cannot provide a factual basis for his plea because the statement was not sworn testimony. Evidence other than sworn testimony, however, may provide an adequate factual basis for accepting a guilty plea. Sims v. State (1981), Ind.App., 422...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butler v. State
...Evidence used to illustrate factual basis may come from a variety of sources and is not limited to sworn testimony. Bates v. State (1988), Ind., 517 N.E.2d 379; Gibson v. State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 297. The court may base its decision on its inquiry alone, so long as the questions prese......
-
Sedberry v. State
...he understands the nature of the crime and understands that his guilty plea is an admission that he committed the crime. Bates v. State (1988), Ind., 517 N.E.2d 379; Silvers v. State (1986), Ind., 499 N.E.2d 249; Lombardo v. State (1981), Ind., 429 N.E.2d At the guilty plea hearing, Sedberr......
-
Edwards v. State
...might challenge an element of the crime. But this challenge never occurred. Instead, we find this case more similar to Bates v. State, 517 N.E.2d 379, 382 (Ind. 1988), in which our supreme court held that the trial court properly accepted the defendant's plea of guilty to Class A felony cri......
-
Lee v. State
...the charged crime was all about provide a sufficient factual basis for the plea. Cf., Zavesky, supra; Gibson, supra and Bates v. State (1988), Ind., 517 N.E.2d 379, 381 (factual basis may be established by defendant's acknowledgment of truth of statement which contains facts constituting th......