Boles v. State
| Citation | 303 N.E.2d 645,261 Ind. 354 |
| Decision Date | 26 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 1072S130,1072S130 |
| Parties | Turner Lee BOLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Ferdinand Samper, Ferd Samper, Jr., Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., John Carmody, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief wherein the appellant sought to withdraw a plea of guilty to second degree murder. The appellant was originally indicted for first degree murder in 1967. He entered a plea of not guilty at his arraignment on November 22, 1967. On December 11, 1967, the appellant and two co-defendants appeared in Marion Criminal Court with counsel and indicated to the trial court that they wished to withdraw their previously entered pleas and plead guilty to lesser charges. The appellant wished to withdraw his plea of not guilty to first degree murder and enter a plea of guilty to second degree murder.
At the post-conviction relief hearing, the State introduced the transcript of the appellant's guilty plea. The transcript shows unequivocably that the appellant was advised of the constitutional rights deemed waived by the guilty plea. The trial court carefully instructed the appellant as to the consequences of a guilty plea. This is the transcript:
'Q. Do all three of you understand that you don't have to plead guilty?
'DEFENDANTS SOOTS and PETTY JOHN (sic): (A.) Yes, sir.
'Q. Mr. Boles?
'DEFENDANT BOLES: (A.) Yes, sir.
'Q. You understand on the contrary you have a right to plead not guilty and have a trial by jury, do you all understand that?
'DEFENDANTS BOLES and SOOTS: (A.) Yes, sir.
'Q. Mr. Pettyjohn?
'DEFENDANT PETTYJOHN: (A.) Yes, sir.
'Q. Mr. Boles, how old are you?
'DEFENDANT BOLES: (A.) Thirty-six years old.
'Q. And how far did you go in school?
'A. (Boles) I never went to school.
'Q. Can you read and write?
'A. (Boles) Very little.
'Q. Mr. Soots, how old are you?
'A. (Soots) Thirty-four.
'Q. How far did you go in school?
'A. (Soots) One year at high school.
'Q. And you can read and write all right, can you?
'A. (Soots) Yes.
'Q. All right. Mr. Pettyjohn, how old are you?
'A. (Pettyjohn) Thirty-one, sir.
'Q. How far did you go in school?
'A. (Pettyjohn) Eighth grade.
'Q. You can read and write all right, can't you?
'A. (Pettyjohn) Yes, sir.
'Q. Do all of you understand that when I say trial by jury that would mean a trial by twelve impartial people who would sit over there in that jury box, listen to all of the evidence in the case and then decide the result. Do you all three understand that?
'A. (Boles) Yes, sir.
'A. (Soots) Yes, sir.
'A. (Pettyjohn) Yes, sir.
'Q. And do all three of you understand that if you were to have such a trial by jury, the result of that trial might be more severe than the result of a guilty plea, or it might be less severe than the result of a guilty plea, or it might be a verdict of not guilty, which would mean you would go absolutely free. Do all three of you understand that?
'A. (Soots) Yes, sir.
'Q. Mr. Boles?
'A. (Boles) Yes.
'Q. Mr. Pettyjohn?
'A. (Pettyjohn) Yes, sir.
'Q. Do all three of you understand that if you were to have such a trial by jury, during that trial you would not have to do anything if you didn't want to, do you all three understand (sic) that? In other words if you wanted to, you could just sit at the table because you wouldn't have to disprove anything, do all three of you understand that?
'A. (Boles and Soots) Yes.
'Q. Mr. Pettyjohn?
'A. Yes, sir.
'Q. On the contrary it would be up to the State to go ahead with the evidence and to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all three of you did exactly what the State says you did here in this indictment which is the formal charge against you. Now do all three of you understand that?
'A. (Boles and Soots) Yes.
'Q. Mr. Boles?
'A. Yes, sir.
'Q. Do you understand that if on the other hand you did want to, you would have a right to take the stand and testify for yourself, to tell your side of the case, to introduce other evidence, to call witnesses to come to Court to testify for you and to have all witnesses for the State cross examined by your lawyer. Now do all three understand that? Mr. Boles?
'A. (Boles) Yes, sir.
'Q. Mr. Soots?
'A. (Soots) Yes, sir.
'Q. Mr. Pettyjohn?
'A. (Pettyjohn) Yes, sir.
'Q. Do you also understand that if you were to have such a trial and not like the result of it that you would have a right to appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court in an effort to change that result. Do you all understand that?
'A. (Boles, Soots and Pettyjohn) Yes, sir.
'Q. And do all three of you understand that you would be entitled as a matter of right to have a lawyer at all stages through both the trial and the appeal, do you understand that?
'A. (Boles, Soots and Pettyjohn) Yes, sir.
'Q. And do you all understand that if you didn't have the money for a lawyer, either for the trial or for the appeal or both, I would see that you got one anyway. Do you all three understand that?
'A. (Boles, Soots and Pettyjohn) Yes, sir.
'Q. Do all three of you understand that all to these things I have mentioned to you here this morning, these are all your rights as you stand here now.
'A. (Boles and Soots) Yes, sir.
'Q. Mr. Pettyjohn?
'A. (Pettyjohn) Yes, sir.
'Q. And all three of you understanding that these are your rights right now, do you want to plead guilty as you have indicated?
'A. (Soots and Pettyjohn) Yes, sir.
'Q. Mr. Boles?
'A. (Boles), Yes, sir.
'Q. Now are any of you pleading guilty because of any threats or promises that have been made to you? Mr. Boles?
'A. (Boles) No, sir.
'Q. Mr. Soots?
'A. (Soots) No, sir.
'Q. Mr. Pettyjohn?
'A. (Pettyjohn) No, sir.
'Q. Do all three of you understand the crimes to which you are pleading guilty? Mr. Boles do you understand the crime to which you are pleading guilty, what the charge is to which you are pleading guilty?
'A. (Boles) Second degree murder.
'Q. Second degree murder, do you understand that?
'A. (Boles) Yes, sir.
'Q. Now, Mr. Soots, do you understand what you are pleading guilty to.
'A. (Soots) Yes, sir.
'Q. And what is that?
'A. (Soots) Manslaughter.
'Q. All right, Mr. Pettyjohn, do you understand what you are pleading guilty to?
'A. (Pettyjohn) Yes, sir.
'Q. And what is that?
'A. (Pettyjohn) Manslaughter.
'Q. Now, Mr. Boles, do you understand what the maximum penalty for second degree murder, to which you are pleading guilty here this morning, can be?
'A. (Boles) A life sentence.
'Q. Mr. Soots, do you understand what the maximum penalty can be for the charge to which you are pleading guilty?
'A. (Soots) Two to twenty-one.
'Q. Imprisonment for not less than two years nor more than twenty-one years, you understand that?
'A. (Soots) Yes, sir.
'Q. Mr. Pettyjohn, do you understand what the maximum penalty can be for the charge to which you are pleading guilty?
'A. (Pettyjohn) Yes, sir.
'Q. And what is that?
'A. (Pettyjohn) Two to Twenty-one years.
'Q. All right. All three of you have consulted with your respective attorneys, have you before entering this plea?
'A. (Boles and Soots) Yes, sir.
'Q. Mr. Pettyjohn?
'A. (Pettyjohn) Yes, sir.
'Q. And after consultation with your respective attorneys, I take it that all three of you feel it is in your best interest to enter these pleas. Is that about it?
'A. (Boles, Soots and Pettyjohn) Yes, sir.
'Q. Now this indictment which is the formal charge against you here says in substance, that on December the seventeenth, 1966, each of you purposely and with premeditated malice killed Samuel Monroe, who was a human being, by shooting Samuel Monroe with a gun and that as a result of the mortal wounds inflicted upon him by you, Samuel Monroe then and thereby died. Now, Mr. Boles, do you understand that you are pleading guilty to second degree murder as covered by that charge? In other words these are the facts under which you are pleading guilty to second degree murder. Do you understand this all right?
'A. (Boles) Yes, sir.
'Q. In other words this is the fact situation out of which this guilty pleae (sic) arose, you understand that, don't you?
'A. (Boles) Yes, sir.
'Q. Now, Mr. Soots and Mr. Pettyjohn, do you both understand that you are pleading guilty to manslaughter as covered by that charge? Mr. Soots?
'A. (Soots) Yes, sir.
'Q. Mr. Pettyjohn?
'A. (Pettyjohn) Yes, sir.
'Q. Understanding all the things I have indicated to you here today, Mr. Boles do you want to plead guilty as you have indicated?
'A. (Boles) Yes, sir.
'Q. Mr. Soots?
'A. (Soots) Yes, sir.
'Q. Mr. Pettyjohn?
'A. (Pettyjohn) Yes, sir.
'WITNESSES ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
'QUESTIONS DIRECTED TO SERGEANT UBERTA...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parsons v. State
...by the trial court prior to acceptance of a guilty plea. It does stand for the proposition, as Justice Hunter said in Boles v. State, 303 N.E.2d 645 (Ind.1973), that: '. . . the voluntariness of a guilty plea is not rendered constitutionally defective merely because a criminal defendant den......
-
Anderson v. State
...of the overwhelming evidence in the record against him and the minimal possibility of his acquittal. The court in Boles v. State (1973), 261 Ind. 354, 303 N.E.2d 645 stated that the trial court should never accept a guilty plea when it is accompanied by a protestation of innocence and unacc......
-
Cross v. State
...could find an adequate factual basis for the plea. See, e.g., Campbell v. State (1975) 262 Ind. 594, 321 N.E.2d 560; Boles v. State (1973) 261 Ind. 354, 303 N.E.2d 645; Anderson v. State (1979) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 396 N.E.2d 960. However, in Ross v. State (1983) Ind., 456 N.E.2d 420, 422-23, ......
-
Likens v. State
...v. Alford (1970), 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162; Campbell v. State (1975), 262 Ind. 594, 321 N.E.2d 560; Boles v. State (1973), 261 Ind. 354, 303 N.E.2d 645; King v. State, In Harshman the accused was not represented by counsel, who presumably would have discussed with him the n......