Dearman v. State
Decision Date | 24 November 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 1184,1184 |
Parties | Michael DEARMAN, Appellant (Petitioner below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Respondent below). S 452. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Rick Ranucci, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Richard A. Alford, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant-Petitioner, Michael Dearman, pleaded guilty to robbery, a class A felony, on August 5, 1983. On August 30, 1983, the trial court sentenced him to twenty-five (25) years. Dearman filed his petition for post-conviction relief on January 11, 1984, which was denied on June 19, 1984. Dearman now appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief petition, raising the following issues:
1. whether Dearman's guilty plea was given involuntarily because the trial court did not advise him of the possibility of an increased sentence due to a prior conviction; and
2. whether a factual basis existed to support Dearman's guilty plea to robbery.
Appellant first contends he was not specifically advised of, "... any possible increased sentence by reason of the fact of a prior conviction or convictions ...," pursuant to Ind.Code Sec. 35-4.1-1-3(d) (Burns, 1978), now Ind.Code Sec. 35-35-1-2(a)(3) (Burns, 1984). Because the trial court failed to strictly comply with this requirement, he claims his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently entered. Dearman cites German v. State (1981), Ind., 428 N.E.2d 234, as authority.
This Court very recently handed down White v. State (1986), Ind., 497 N.E.2d 893. In White, we overruled German, supra, and set out a new standard for reviewing guilty pleas. We stated:
White at 905. Here, Dearman has not met his burden.
At Dearman's guilty plea hearing, the trial court informed Dearman as follows:
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any questions in those regards?
It is clear the trial court informed Dearman of the minimum and maximum sentences he could receive if he pleaded guilty. The trial court also informed Dearman that his guilty plea could have an effect on his probation status. Dearman's contention that the trial court did not inform him of any possible increase in the sentence due to past convictions is without merit. He has not alleged any facts which show he entered his guilty plea involuntarily or unintelligently. Rather he asks us to set aside his guilty plea because he claims the trial court did not advise him in strict accordance with the guilty plea statute. This is not a sufficient showing. White, supra. After looking at the record in its entirety, it is clear Dearman entered his plea both voluntarily and knowingly.
Dearman was charged with one count of murder, and one count of robbery. The State agreed to drop the murder count if Dearman pleaded guilty to the robbery charge. Further, the State agreed to ask for no more than a twenty-five (25) year sentence. The trial court sentenced Dearman to twenty-five (25) years, which is five (5) years less than the presumptive sentence for class A felony robbery. Dearman has failed to show anything more than the trial judge's failure to advise him in accordance with Ind.Code Sec. 35-35-1-2. Thus he has not met his...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Honaker v. State
...may not accept a guilty plea unless it is satisfied there is a sufficient factual basis for the plea.’ “ Id. (quoting Dearman v. State, 500 N.E.2d 1161, 1163 (Ind.1986) ). The Court also held that “[e]vidence other than the sworn testimony of the defendant can serve as an adequate basis for......
-
Jackson v. State
...This argument is without merit. The Indiana Supreme Court has applied White retroactively several times. Dearman v. State (1986), Ind., 500 N.E.2d 1161; Duvall v. State (1986), Ind., 499 N.E.2d 222; King v. State (1986), Ind., 499 N.E.2d 241; Mallery v. State (1986), Ind., 499 N.E.2d 1100; ......
-
Noble v. State, 84A01-8801-PC-36
...finding if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support it. Stockey v. State (1987), Ind., 508 N.E.2d 793; Dearman v. State (1986), Ind., 500 N.E.2d 1161. As stated earlier, Roman testified during the evidentiary hearing that Noble had been found laying in the yard of the bur......
-
Stockey v. State, 1285S527
...If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's finding, we will uphold that finding. Dearman v. State (1986), Ind., 500 N.E.2d 1161, 1163. Stockey testified, following a reading of the murder and voluntary manslaughter statutes, that he did the things cover......