Brunson v. State
Decision Date | 19 September 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 3-978A213,3-978A213 |
Parties | Henry BRUNSON, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
K. Richard Payne, Fort Wayne, for appellant.
Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Philip R. Blowers, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
On February 19, 1978, Henry Brunson was charged in a two-count information with Unlawful Possession of a Deadly Weapon 1 and Resisting Law Enforcement. 2 He subsequently entered a plea of guilty to the former offense, but pleaded not guilty to the latter crime. Brunson was then tried without the intervention of a jury and found guilty of Resisting Law Enforcement. For that misdemeanor, Brunson was fined One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) and sentenced to the Indiana Department of Corrections for a period of thirty (30) days. For this unlawful possession of a deadly weapon, Brunson was fined Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00) and sentenced to the Department of Corrections for a period of one (1) year. The court ordered that the respective periods of incarceration were to be served concurrently.
Brunson's appeal to this Court challenges the propriety of his conviction for Resisting Law Enforcement. He raises the following issue for our review:
Whether the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to inform him of his right to counsel at the misdemeanor trial?
We reverse.
Brunson relies on Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972), 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530, in support of his contention that the trial court erred when it failed to advise him of his right to an attorney at the misdemeanor trial. 3 In Argersinger, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that no person can be imprisoned for a misdemeanor or petty offense unless he or she was represented by counsel at trial or knowingly and intelligently waived the right to an attorney. 407 U.S. at 27, 92 S.Ct. at 2012. See also, Scott v. Illinois (1979), 440 U.S. 367, 99 S.Ct. 1158, 59 L.Ed.2d 383. 4
Our decision here is predicated not on federal constitutional guarantees, however, but rather on Article 1, Section 13 of the Indiana Constitution, which reads:
Unlike the federal constitutional guarantee, the provisions of Section 13 establish a right to counsel for all persons charged with a criminal misdemeanor, regardless of whether the charge ultimately results in the misdemeanant's imprisonment. Bolkovac v. State (1951), 229 Ind. 294, 98 N.E.2d 250. As Judge Emmert observed in Bolkovac :
(Footnote omitted.)
229 Ind. at 299-300, 98 N.E.2d at 253. The trial court thus committed reversible error when it failed to advise Brunson of his state constitutional right to counsel prior to the misdemeanor trial.
We also reverse Brunson's conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Deadly Weapon. The record reveals that the trial court accepted Brunson's plea of guilt to that offense. There is no indication in the record, 5 however, that prior to the entry and acceptance of the plea, the court advised Brunson of the constitutional rights enumerated in Boykin v. Alabama (1969), 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 or the various matters contained in IC 1971, 35-4.1-1-3 and 4 (Burns Code Ed.). The failure of the trial court to insure that Brunson's plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made constitutes fundamental error. Branan v. State (1974), 161 Ind.App. 443, 445, 316 N.E.2d 406, 408; Goode v. State (1974), 160 Ind.App. 360, 362, 312 N.E.2d 109, 112.
The cause is reversed and remanded. Brunson is granted a new trial with respect to the count alleging that he resisted law enforcement; in addition, the trial court is instructed to permit Brunson to withdraw his plea of guilty to Unlawful Possession of a Deadly Weapon.
1 IC 1971, 35-23-12-2 (Burns Code Ed.), repealed effective March 2, 1978, by Acts 1978, P.L. 147, §§ 1 and 2.
2 Ind.Code Ann. §...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Woodruff
...or waiver of right to counsel before a conviction may be used to enhance the penalty for a current conviction); Brunson v. State, 182 Ind.App. 146, 394 N.E.2d 229, 231 (1979) (holding state constitution required counsel for all persons charged with a criminal misdemeanor); State v. Orr, 375......
-
Nichols v. United States
...satisfies the ends of justice); Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 15 (West 1988), Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 858 (West 1985); Brunson v. State, 182 Ind. App. 146, 394 N. E. 2d 229 (1979) (right to counsel in misdemeanor proceedings guaranteed by Ind. Const., Art. I, § 13); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 604-A:2 ......
-
Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Sutherland Lumber, 3-378A52
... ... The Act does not attempt to define the meaning of substantial evidence "a legal term which defies precise definition." State Department of Natural Resources v. Lehman (1978), Ind.App., 378 N.E.2d 31, See 4 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 29.01 (1958). To be ... ...
-
Alabama v. Shelton
...Code Ann. § 11-2602 (West 2001); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 802-1 (1999); Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, § 113-3 (1992); Brunson v. State, 182 Ind. App. 146, 149, 394 N. E. 2d 229, 231 (1979) (right to counsel in misdemeanor proceedings guaranteed by Ind. Const., Art. I, § 13); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 31......
-
Social Capital and Protecting the Rights of the Accused in the American States
...910, (Alaska 1971); State v. Dowler,80Haw.246,90932 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972); Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. P.2d 574 (1995); Brunson v. State, 394 N.E.2d 229 (Ind. App. 1979); State v.Peart, 621367, 99 S. Ct. 1158, 59 L.Ed.2d 383 (1979) So.2d 783 (La. 1993); State v.Nordstrom, 331 N.W.2d 901 (Minn.......