Coleman v. State, No. 185S20

Docket NºNo. 185S20
Citation490 N.E.2d 711
Case DateMarch 25, 1986
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 711

490 N.E.2d 711
Harold M. COLEMAN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 185S20.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
March 25, 1986.

Page 712

Reginald B. Bishop, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Louis E. Ransdell, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianpolis, for appellee.

PIVARNIK, Justice.

Defendant-Appellant Harold M. Coleman was found guilty at the conclusion of a bench trial in Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division, of burglary, a class C felony, and theft, a class B felony. He also was found to be an habitual offender. He was sentenced by the trial court to a term of forty-two (42) years. Four issues are presented for our consideration in this direct appeal:

1. whether Appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his rights in giving a written confession;

2. sufficiency of the evidence;

3. alleged improper admission of records of prior convictions; and

4. error in sentencing.

On March 14, 1984, the Star Service Station at 4014 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, was burglarized. The station's front door was broken and pried open, the bay door was broken open, several interior doors were broken and the cash drawer was missing along with some "feather clips," candy, tobacco, and sunglasses. A few hours later Appellant was apprehended and the missing items were found in his automobile. Appellant was read his Miranda rights, signed a waiver of rights form, and gave a statement admitting he had committed the offense.

I

Appellant first claims because he was allegedly under the influence of drugs at the time he signed the waiver of rights and gave his statement, the trial court abused its discretion in allowing both into evidence. It is Appellant's contention the confession was not given knowingly as he was under the influence of drugs at the time, and it was not voluntary because he was coerced by the withholding of medical treatment for side effects he suffered from the drugs.

The admissibility of a confession ultimately depends upon questions of fact which are to be resolved by the trial court. This being so, the standard for appellate review of waiver of rights or admissibility

Page 713

of a confession are the same as any other fact finding issue. Chandler v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 624, 631, 419 N.E.2d 142, 147. If the evidence is conflicting, only that evidence which tends to support the trial court's ruling will be considered on appeal. If the trial court's ruling is supported by substantial evidence of probative value it will not be disturbed. It is for the trier of fact to resolve conflicts on the voluntariness of the confession, and the reviewing court is bound by the trial court's resolution. The same is true of a waiver of rights. Chandler v. State Ind., 419 N.E.2d at 147; Ball v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 617, 620, 419 N.E.2d 137, 140, reh denied (1981); Ortiz v. State (1976), 265 Ind. 549, 554, 356 N.E.2d 1188, 1191. The execution of a waiver form is not conclusive. It is simply one factor for the trial court to weigh in considering the voluntariness of a statement. Hedgecough v. State (1975), 164 Ind.App. 224, 226, 328 N.E.2d 230, 232.

Appellant points to no independent evidence that indicates he was so intoxicated or under the influence of drugs at the time of his waiver or the giving of his statement as to render his statement unknowing or involuntary. Detective Patterson testified that in his opinion Appellant was not under the influence of drugs at the time of the waiver and the giving of his statement. Patterson admitted that he was not an expert on the subject, but based his opinion on the fact that Appellant was coherent, had no trouble walking, and had no problem with his speech. Subsequently, it was discovered that Appellant did have a serious medical problem caused by impurities in the drugs he injected. Due to these impurities veins in his arms had collapsed and caused some pain at the time he was interrogated. Patterson testified Appellant merely showed Patterson his arm and requested that he be seen at the hospital. Patterson assured Appellant this would be done, and Appellant subsequently was sent to the hospital. Although Appellant now states that medical attention was withheld from him to coerce him into signing a confession, the State's contention is that neither Patterson nor Appellant was aware at the time of the gravity of the situation. Appellant was aware only of pain in his arm and requested he be seen in regard to it. This was promised to him and it was done. Only then was it determined he had collapsed veins due to impurities in the drugs he had injected. No reversible error is presented on this issue. See Grimes v. State (1983), Ind., 454 N.E.2d 388.

II

Appellant's next allegation of error is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Bryant v. State, No. 27S04-9409-CR-865
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 27, 1995
    ...generally United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 134, 101 S.Ct. 426, 435-36, 66 L.Ed.2d 328 (1980); Coleman v. State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 711, 715; Williams v. State (1986), Ind.App., 494 N.E.2d 1001, 1004, cert. denied 481 U.S. 1054, 107 S.Ct. 2191, 95 L.Ed.2d 846 (1987); Arthur W......
  • Peterson v. State, No. 45S00-9103-DP-223
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 13, 1996
    ...court's ruling and will uphold the trial court if the ruling is supported by substantial evidence of probative value. Coleman v. State, 490 N.E.2d 711, 713 (Ind.1986). Corporal Zenone's testimony that the weapon was visible satisfies our standard. Corporal Zenone did not have to pry into hi......
  • Stanger v. State, No. 32A01-8903-CR-00105
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 6, 1989
    ...which tends to support the trial court's ruling will be considered with the uncontradicted evidence. Coleman v. State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 711, 712-713. See also, Bowen v. State (1985), Ind., 478 N.E.2d 44, 45. Page 1109 To admit a confession into evidence in Indiana, the State must pro......
  • Lowery v. State, No. 02S00-8606-CR-591
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 8, 1989
    ...its ruling. Zook v. State (1987), Ind., 513 N.E.2d 1217; Dodson v. State (1987), Ind., 502 N.E.2d 1333; Coleman v. State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 711. If the trial court's ruling is supported by substantial evidence of probative value, it will not be disturbed. Zook, 513 N.E.2d 1217. The st......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • Bryant v. State, No. 27S04-9409-CR-865
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 27, 1995
    ...generally United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 134, 101 S.Ct. 426, 435-36, 66 L.Ed.2d 328 (1980); Coleman v. State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 711, 715; Williams v. State (1986), Ind.App., 494 N.E.2d 1001, 1004, cert. denied 481 U.S. 1054, 107 S.Ct. 2191, 95 L.Ed.2d 846 (1987); Arthur W......
  • Peterson v. State, No. 45S00-9103-DP-223
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 13, 1996
    ...court's ruling and will uphold the trial court if the ruling is supported by substantial evidence of probative value. Coleman v. State, 490 N.E.2d 711, 713 (Ind.1986). Corporal Zenone's testimony that the weapon was visible satisfies our standard. Corporal Zenone did not have to pry into hi......
  • Stanger v. State, No. 32A01-8903-CR-00105
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 6, 1989
    ...which tends to support the trial court's ruling will be considered with the uncontradicted evidence. Coleman v. State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 711, 712-713. See also, Bowen v. State (1985), Ind., 478 N.E.2d 44, 45. Page 1109 To admit a confession into evidence in Indiana, the State must pro......
  • Lowery v. State, No. 02S00-8606-CR-591
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 8, 1989
    ...its ruling. Zook v. State (1987), Ind., 513 N.E.2d 1217; Dodson v. State (1987), Ind., 502 N.E.2d 1333; Coleman v. State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 711. If the trial court's ruling is supported by substantial evidence of probative value, it will not be disturbed. Zook, 513 N.E.2d 1217. The st......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT