Davis v. State

Decision Date18 June 1984
Docket NumberNo. 1-1283A390,1-1283A390
PartiesGuy Anthony DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Page 926

464 N.E.2d 926
Guy Anthony DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee.
No. 1-1283A390.
Court of Appeals of Indiana,
First District.
June 18, 1984.

Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Melanie C. Conour, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for defendant-appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Amy Schaeffer Good, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.

NEAL, Presiding Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner-appellant Guy Anthony Davis (Davis) appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Ind.Rules of Procedure, Post-Conviction Remedy Rule 1.

We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE RECORD

On August 10, 1976, Davis was charged with first degree burglary on August 13, 1976, he was presented to the trial court where the charge was explained and he was advised of his rights to counsel, to plead not guilty, to a jury trial, to confront witnesses, to an attorney, to compulsory process, not to testify, and that the State must prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. On September 14, 1976, a written plea agreement was signed by Davis and filed with the trial court which recited that it was not binding on the court, and that Davis would plead guilty to the lesser included offense of entering to commit a

Page 927

felony and receive a one to five year indeterminate sentence. It further stated that he understood his constitutional rights to a public and speedy trial, a jury trial, freedom from self-incrimination, to confront and cross-examine witnesses, to compulsory process, and to have the State prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It concluded by stating that upon entering the guilty plea he waived those rights. On October 1, 1976, Davis appeared and in response to questions by the court he acknowledged the plea agreement and the sentence. He acknowledged that by pleading guilty to the crime of entering to commit a felony he waived a jury trial and the right to confront and examine witnesses, and stated the plea was voluntary. The court accepted the plea agreement. Counsel for Davis, not Davis himself, entered the guilty plea and thereupon the court made its factual determination of guilty and sentenced Davis according to the agreement.

Davis's post-conviction relief petition alleged that at the time of the entering the guilty plea, there was not a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver and plea because the court had not advised him at the time of the entering and accepting the plea that he had a right to compulsory process, a right not to incriminate himself, a right to have the state prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a right to a public and speedy trial, and that the court was not a party to the plea agreement. The State defended the petition on the grounds of denial and laches. The trial court, in its findings of fact and conclusions of law, essentially found from the over all record recited above that Davis was advised of all of his rights; that he waived those rights; and that the plea of guilty was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered. The trial court made no finding of laches, and did not base its decision thereon.

It is to be noted that Davis served his sentence and the post-conviction petition is a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Western Smelting & Metals v. Slater Steel, Inc., Civ. No. F 85-364.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • November 12, 1985
    ...Sayler, 245 F.2d 171, 174 (7th Cir.1957); State ex rel. Uzelac v. Lake Criminal Court, 247 Ind. 87, 212 N.E.2d 21 (1965); Davis v. State, 464 N.E.2d 926, 928 (Ind.App.1984). An exception to this general rule exists for remedial statutes which do not create new rights or take existing rights......
  • Arthur v. Arthur, 49A02-8610-CV-382
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 18, 1988
    ...intent to give the statute retroactive operation. Bailey v. Menzie (1987), Ind.App., 505 N.E.2d 126; Davis v. State (1984), Ind.App., 464 N.E.2d 926; McGill v. Muddy Fork of Silver Creek Watershed Conservancy Dist. (1977), 175 Ind.App. 48, 370 N.E.2d 365. A statute is not given retroactive ......
  • Martin v. State, 2-1183-A-417
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 13, 1984
    ...v. State (2d Dist., August 9, 1984) Ind.App., 466 N.E.2d 783 (guilty plea 1974); Davis v. State (1st Dist., June 18, 1984) Ind.App., 464 N.E.2d 926 (guilty plea October 1, 1976); see also Austin v. State (decided August 9, 1984) Ind., 466 N.E.2d Inasmuch as the guilty plea before us was ent......
  • Thomas v. Hemmelgarn, 71A03-9010-CV-473
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 21, 1991
    ...is the rule. Id., 519 N.E.2d 230, 231, citing Bailey v. Menzie (1987), Ind.App., 505 N.E.2d 126; Davis v. State (1984), Ind.App., 464 N.E.2d 926; McGill v. Muddy Fork of Silver Creek Watershed Conservancy Dist. (1977), 175 Ind.App. 48, 370 N.E.2d 365. Retrospective application of amendments......
  • 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