Dobosky v. State
| Citation | 109 N.E. 742,183 Ind. 488 |
| Decision Date | 06 October 1915 |
| Docket Number | 22,779 |
| Parties | Dobosky v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
From Lake Superior Court; Virgil S. Reiter, Judge.
Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Gustave Dobosky. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Walter J. Lotz, Charles R. Macnab, for appellant.
Richard M. Milburn, Attorney-General, J. A. Patterson, Horace M Kean, Leslie R. Naftzger, Omer S. Jackson and Wilbur T Gruber, for the State.
February 11, 1915, an affidavit was filed in the lower court charging appellant and five others with grand larceny alleged to have been committed three days before. On the same day appellant being in custody and not represented by counsel was arraigned and pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced by the court to suffer a fine and disfranchisement and imprisonment for an indeterminate term of from one to fourteen years in the State reformatory. February 19, 1915, through attorneys, appellant served notice in writing on the prosecuting attorney that on February 24, 1915, he would by his verified petition ask the court to vacate and set aside the judgment so rendered against him, permit him to withdraw his plea of guilty and plead not guilty and to set the cause for trial on the issue tendered by the latter plea. On the day last named, the matter was heard by the court on appellant's verified petition and all the relief prayed for denied him. This action by the court is presented for review in this appeal.
It is made to appear in substance in appellant's verified petition that he is of foreign birth and parentage and has but a meager understanding of the English language; that he was an employe of the Standard Steel Car Company and lived in one of the company's houses in Hammond; that he was arrested there early in the morning of February 11, 1915, and was charged with the crime of grand larceny, by affidavit, was arraigned, pleaded guilty and was sentenced on the same day; that when arrested he was taken to jail and held without opportunity to consult with friends or relatives; that while so in custody police officers and others interested in the prosecution of the crime in question, advised him to plead guilty on the ground that he was poor and unable to employ counsel and induced him to do so by representations that if he did so plead the court probably would not send him to jail for more than a month or so; that he was not informed of his constitutional right of a trial by jury and to be heard by counsel furnished him by the State if he desired; that he did not realize the consequences of pleading guilty and had no desire to plead guilty of the crime charged and was not guilty of it; that he had never been convicted of crime, is a man of good moral character and has a family dependent on him; that if permitted to defend he can show that he is not guilty of the crime charged against him.
Without counter-affidavits or other evidence, the court denied appellant the relief asked and the sole question presented for review is whether this was an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court which this court is authorized to correct. That appellant has sought relief by the proper method is settled. Wheeler v. State (1902), 158 Ind. 687, 696, 63 N.E. 975; Meyers v. State (1901), 156 Ind. 388, 59 N.E. 1052; Myers v. State (1888), 115 Ind. 554, 18 N.E. 42; Sanders v. State (1882), 85 Ind. 318, 44 Am. Rep. 29.
Whether one duly charged with a crime may withdraw a plea of guilty entered by him is a question committed to the sound judicial discretion that an impartial judge should exercise. On appeal for review, as the presumption is in favor of the ruling of the trial court, its denial of an application to be permitted to withdraw a plea of guilty and to plead not guilty and defend will, as a rule, be sustained where the record discloses no ground for the application or where it appears from the record that the court's ruling was based on conflicting evidence which it was compelled to weigh to reach a conclusion. Wheeler v. State, supra; Meyers v. State, supra; Monahan v. State (1893), 135 Ind. 216, 34 N.E. 967; Pattee v. State (1887), 109 Ind. 545, 10 N.E. 421; Conover v. State (18...
To continue reading
Request your trial