Farrell v. State, 585S217

• Docket Nº: No. 585S217
• Citation: 495 N.E.2d 530
• Case Date: July 21, 1986
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

Page 530

495 N.E.2d 530 Robert FARRELL, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee. No. 585S217. Supreme Court of Indiana. July 21, 1986.

Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Hope Fey, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Richard C. Webster, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PIVARNIK, Justice.

On July 20, 1979, Defendant-Appellant Robert Farrell was charged in the Tippecanoe Superior Court, No. I with the crime of murder. Appellant entered a plea of not guilty on August 30, 1979. On January 17, 1980, a few days before trial was to begin, Appellant Farrell filed a written motion with the court to withdraw his not guilty plea and enter a guilty plea to murder. This motion was in writing and signed by Appellant in the presence of his counsel in open court. On that same date he entered his plea of guilty to murder. The motion he filed set out that he had entered into plea negotiations with the State which culminated in his decision to plead guilty as charged in exchange for the State's promise to argue for no more than a thirty-five (35) year sentence. It was further understood that Appellant would request that he be given the minimum sentence for murder which was thirty (30) years. In Paragraph 8(c) of his motion, Appellant represented to the court that he understood that the Constitution guaranteed, him "... the right to the presumption of innocence and to force the State to prove the charge against me beyond a reasonable doubt." Appellant subsequently was sentenced to a term of thirty (30) years by the court.

Page 531

On September 23, 1983, Appellant filed his pro se petition for post-conviction relief. On October 3, 1983, the State Public Defender appeared on Appellant's behalf. After an evidentiary hearing on April 9, 1984, the trial court denied the petition for post-conviction relief on April 30, 1984. Appellant's motion to correct error was denied and this appeal follows. Appellant presents two issues for our review:

1. failure of the trial court meaningfully to advise Appellant of the State's burden of proof; and

2. acceptance by the trial court of Appellant's plea of guilty to murder without fully advising him of the true nature of that offense.

In reviewing the denial of post-conviction relief we do not reweigh evidence nor do we judge the credibility of witnesses. The denial of relief would be reversed only where the judge was presented with uncontradicted evidence leading to but one conclusion and the trial court arrived at an opposite conclusion. Gibson v. State (1983), Ind., 456 N.E.2d 1006, 1007; Davis v. State (1983), Ind., 446 N.E.2d 1317, 1320; Brown v. State (1983), Ind., 443 N.E.2d 316, 319. At the post-conviction relief hearing the petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that he was entitled to relief. Gibson, Ind., 456 N.E.2d at 1007; Davis, Ind., 446 N.E.2d at 1319; Turman v....