Catt v. State
| Decision Date | 24 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-1281A399,2-1281A399 |
| Parties | Richard E. CATT, Appellant (Petitioner Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Respondent Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Ihor N. Boyko, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Richard E. Catt appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Indiana Rules of Procedure, Post-Conviction Rule 1. The petition resulted from a guilty plea Catt entered to a charge of theft of less than $100, I.C. 35-17-5-3 (Burns Code Ed. 1975, Repealed). Catt raises three issues on appeal:
1) whether Catt's plea of guilty was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered;
2) whether the conviction was proper as a lesser included offense without amending the charge; and
3) whether there was a valid waiver of the right to counsel.
Because the first issue constitutes reversible error, we reach only that issue.
Catt carries the burden to establish his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. To prevail from the adverse judgment below, Catt must show the evidence leads unerringly and unmistakably to a decision in his favor. German v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 234, 236. Catt met this burden.
It is well settled an Indiana court shall not accept a guilty plea without first addressing and advising the defendant according to the provisions of I.C. 35-4.1-1-3 and I.C. 35-4.1-1-4 (Burns Code Ed., Repl. 1979). The statutes' purpose is to ensure guilty pleas are entered into voluntarily, understandingly, and knowingly by criminal defendants. Where a court fails to so address and advise, a reversal of the decision must result. German v. State, 428 N.E.2d at 237, now requires a direct statement by the trial court to the defendant of at least some of the statutory provisions; however, even prior to German it was necessary for a court to comply strictly with the statute. See, e.g., Bullock v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 406 N.E.2d 1220; Turman v. State, (1979) Ind., 392 N.E.2d 483.
The record shows virtually no compliance with the statutory mandate. The trial court did advise Catt of the nature of the original charge. Record at 107-08. However, the recitation of the pending charge was the extent of the trial court's attempt to comply with the law. Thus, Catt's plea of guilty must be vacated because the court's non-compliance renders the guilty plea involuntary because voluntariness will not be presumed from a silent record. Turman, 392 N.E.2d at 487.
In addition, the trial court made a material misstatement to Catt which vitiates the voluntariness of Catt's guilty plea. The court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sides v. State
...that a defendant cannot meaningfully plead guilty if he is not properly informed of the consequences of his plea. See Catt v. State (1982) 2d Dist.Ind.App., 437 N.E.2d 1001 (defendant informed he was pleading guilty to a misdemeanor when he was actually pleading guilty to a felony). Therefo......
-
Majko v. Pearson
..."true nature" of the charge includes whether the offense is classified as a felony or misdemeanor. Majko's reliance on Catt v. State, 437 N.E.2d 1001 (Ind.App.1982), for support is misplaced. This case is clearly distinguishable from Catt, where the court improperly informed Catt that he wa......
-
Sides v. State
...a defendant cannot meaningfully plead guilty if he is not properly informed of the consequences of his plea. See Catt v. State (1982) 2d Dist., Ind.App., 437 N.E.2d 1001 (defendant informed he was pleading guilty to a misdemeanor when he was actually pleading guilty to a felony). Therefore,......
-
Maggard v. State
...on the part of the judge and prosecutor. The circumstances in this arraignment are similar to those which occurred in Catt v. State (1982), Ind.App., 437 N.E.2d 1001, where the trial judge informed the defendant that he was confronted with a misdemeanor charge, where in fact the charge was ......