Beldon v. State, No. 43A03-9502-PC-63
| Docket Nº | No. 43A03-9502-PC-63 |
| Citation | 657 N.E.2d 1241 |
| Case Date | November 21, 1995 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Page 1241
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 27, 1996.
Page 1242
Michael A. Dvorak, Hahn, Walz, Knepp, Dvorak and Higgins, South Bend, for Appellant.
Pamela Carter, Attorney General, Preston W. Black, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, for Appellee.
Page 1243
OPINION
STATON, Judge.
This is a consolidated appeal. The first post-conviction relief appeal is from a guilty plea that was entered when Clint R. Beldon ("Beldon") was sixteen years old and charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .10 or greater, a class C misdemeanor. 1 The second post-conviction relief appeal is from a guilty plea entered when Beldon was eighteen years of age and charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a class A misdemeanor. 2 These two appeals raise two issues which we have restated. They are:
I. Did the post-conviction court err when it determined that Beldon, a sixteen year old defendant, was fully informed of his fundamental rights prior to entering his guilty plea.
II. Did the post-conviction court err when it determined that Beldon, an eighteen year old defendant, was fully informed of his fundamental rights prior to entering his guilty plea.
We conclude that he was not at the age of sixteen and that he was at the age of eighteen. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
The facts most favorable to the judgments reveal that in August 1988, sixteen year-old Beldon was charged with operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .10 or greater, a class C misdemeanor. In September 1988, Beldon appeared without counsel and without a parent or guardian, was advised of his fundamental rights en masse, signed a written waiver form, and pled guilty (hereinafter "Plea I"). In 1990, Beldon was charged and pled guilty to operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a class A misdemeanor (hereinafter "Plea II").
Beldon filed petitions for post-conviction relief for each offense wherein he alleged, inter alia, that his guilty pleas were invalid because he was not fully advised of his fundamental rights prior to the entry of his pleas. The post-conviction courts denied Beldon's petitions for relief. These matters were consolidated for appellate review.
Under the rules of post-conviction relief, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1, § 5; Weatherford v. State (1993), Ind., 619 N.E.2d 915, 917, reh. denied. To prevail on appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief, the petitioner must show that the evidence as a whole leads unerringly and unmistakably to a conclusion opposite that reached by the trial court. Id.
We review all the evidence before the post-conviction court upon a claim that a plea was not made voluntarily and intelligently. Hinkle v. State (1992), Ind.App., 605 N.E.2d 200, 202, trans. denied. Evidence that the trial judge failed to give one of the statutory advisements does not by itself sustain the petitioner's burden. Followell v. State (1991), Ind., 578 N.E.2d 646, 648, reh. denied. The petitioner must establish specific facts from which the trier of fact could conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that the trial judge's omission rendered the decision to enter a guilty plea involuntary or unintelligent. Id. The petitioner must prove that any erroneous or omitted advisements, if corrected, would have changed his decision to enter the plea. Id.
I.
Sixteen Years Old
For Plea I, Beldon contends that the post-conviction court erred in finding that the trial court adequately determined that Beldon understood, and knowingly and intelligently waived his fundamental rights, after he was given an en masse advisement. However, we do not reach Beldon's claim because the record reveals this dispositive issue which we raise sua sponte: whether Beldon's guilty plea was defective under IC 31-6-7-3, and if so, whether it constituted fundamental error.
Page 1244
By statute, a child 3 cannot unilaterally waive his constitutional rights. IC 31-6-7-3; Sills v. State (1984), Ind., 463 N.E.2d 228, 231, reh. denied. IC 31-6-7-3 provides in pertinent part:
Any rights guaranteed to the child under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NM v. State, 49A02-0303-JV-231.
...But see Wehner v. State, 684 N.E.2d 539, 539 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (noting appellant given en masse advisement by judge); Beldon v. State, 657 N.E.2d 1241, 1243 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995) (same), reh'g denied, trans. denied. Nevertheless, given the special status of juveniles and the extra protection a......
-
L.B. v. State, 71A03-9511-JV-391
...§ 31-6-7-3. The statute specifies a strict standard of waiver for juveniles in order to safeguard their rights. See Beldon v. State, 657 N.E.2d 1241, 1244 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). A child's rights may be waived by his counsel, his parent or his guardian joined by the child; however, the waiver st......
-
Maloney v. State, 92S03-9708-CR-447
..."evidence on the face of the record" to indicate an intelligent and voluntary waiver of Boykin rights. For example, in Beldon v. State, 657 N.E.2d 1241 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied, the court Our review of the record reveals that prior to pleading guilty, Beldon signed a Waiver of Right......
-
Wehner v. State, 03A04-9608-PC-307
...error in denying his petition for post-conviction relief because his guilty plea was defective. In support, he cites Beldon v. State, 657 N.E.2d 1241, 1244 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied, for its proposition that, "By statute, a child cannot unilaterally waive his constitutional rights." ......
-
NM v. State, 49A02-0303-JV-231.
...But see Wehner v. State, 684 N.E.2d 539, 539 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (noting appellant given en masse advisement by judge); Beldon v. State, 657 N.E.2d 1241, 1243 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995) (same), reh'g denied, trans. denied. Nevertheless, given the special status of juveniles and the extra protection a......
-
L.B. v. State, 71A03-9511-JV-391
...§ 31-6-7-3. The statute specifies a strict standard of waiver for juveniles in order to safeguard their rights. See Beldon v. State, 657 N.E.2d 1241, 1244 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). A child's rights may be waived by his counsel, his parent or his guardian joined by the child; however, the waiver st......
-
Maloney v. State, 92S03-9708-CR-447
..."evidence on the face of the record" to indicate an intelligent and voluntary waiver of Boykin rights. For example, in Beldon v. State, 657 N.E.2d 1241 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied, the court Our review of the record reveals that prior to pleading guilty, Beldon signed a Waiver of Right......
-
Wehner v. State, 03A04-9608-PC-307
...error in denying his petition for post-conviction relief because his guilty plea was defective. In support, he cites Beldon v. State, 657 N.E.2d 1241, 1244 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied, for its proposition that, "By statute, a child cannot unilaterally waive his constitutional rights." ......