East v. State
| Decision Date | 26 September 1929 |
| Docket Number | 13,691 |
| Citation | 168 N.E. 28,89 Ind.App. 701 |
| Parties | EAST v. STATE OF INDIANA |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From Hancock Circuit Court; Arthur C. VanDuyn, Judge.
Robert E. East was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and sentenced to imprisonment on the State Farm, and he appealed.
Reversed.
Henry Seyfried and Norman E. Patrick, for appellant.
James M. Ogden, Attorney-General, and V. Ed Funk, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
Appellant was charged by affidavit with violation of § 40 of the act of 1925, as amended by the act of 1927 (Acts 1925 p. 570, Acts 1927 p. 562) forbidding the operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and providing that, upon conviction, punishment shall be by fine of not more than $ 500, to which shall be added imprisonment in the county jail or state farm for a period of not less than thirty days nor more than six months. Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded guilty, and the court took the case under advisement for a period of one week, at which time appellant appeared in court and was fined $ 100, to which was added imprisonment at the state farm for a period of sixty days. Appellant was not represented by an attorney, either at the time he pleaded guilty, or at the time the court rendered judgment. When judgment was rendered, appellant orally asked leave to withdraw his plea of guilty, which the court denied, advising him to procure the services of an attorney. Subsequently, at the same term of court, appellant, having given due notice to the prosecuting attorney, filed his verified petition to vacate the judgment and permit him to withdraw his plea of guilty, to enter a plea of not guilty, and that the cause be set for trial. Attached to the petition as a part thereof were six supporting affidavits. It is alleged in the petition that appellant was not in fact guilty of the offense charged in the affidavit; that his plea of guilty was prompted by a belief that the punishment would be by fine only, and that it would be less expensive to pay the fine than to defend; that, on the day charged in the affidavit appellant's automobile was wrecked when it overturned as a result of skidding on the wet pavement on a public highway in the northern part of Hancock county; that, following a trade of the wrecked car for a new one, an altercation arose concerning possession of a spare tire on the old car; that appellant, claiming the tire, took possession of it, and was arrested on an affidavit charging larceny thereof; that, on the same day, the prosecuting attorney filed two affidavits charging appellant with intoxication and with the offense involved in this appeal; that appellant was a resident of the city of South Bend and a stranger in the community; that by various conversations with the prosecuting attorney appellant was led to believe that, if he would plead guilty to the charge of intoxication, the other two charges would be dismissed, and that the fine and costs would be about $ 47; that appellant was acquainted in the city of Anderson, where he retained attorneys, whom he paid a fee, part of which was to be used by the attorneys to retain local counsel in the city of Greenfield; that local counsel was not retained; that, on the day of arraignment, appellant was told by the prosecuting attorney that the charge of larceny would be dismissed as he had previously stated, but that it would be necessary for appellant to plead guilty to the charge of intoxication and the charge here involved, and that the fines would aggregate a little over $ 100, and that there would be no imprisonment; that, being without an...
To continue reading
Request your trial