Followell v. State, No. 42S04-9109-PC-730
| Docket Nº | No. 42S04-9109-PC-730 |
| Citation | 578 N.E.2d 646 |
| Case Date | September 20, 1991 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 646
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Respondent Below).
Rehearing Denied Nov. 20, 1991.
Page 647
Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Patrick R. Ragains, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Mary Dreyer, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
SHEPARD, Chief Justice.
Appellant David Followell pled guilty as charged in 1983 to one count of criminal deviate conduct, a class B felony, Ind.Code Sec. 35-42-4-2 (West 1986). He was sentenced to twenty years, the maximum sentence allowed by statute for a class B felony. Ind.Code Sec. 35-50-2-5 (West 1986).
At the combined guilty plea and sentencing hearing, the judge questioned Followell to determine whether his guilty plea was voluntary and intelligent. The judge's questions closely tracked the controlling statute, Indiana Code Sec. 35-35-1-2, requiring judges, before accepting a guilty plea, to make an inquiry:
(1) Determining that [the defendant] understands the nature of the charge against him;
(2) Informing him that by his plea he waives his rights to:
(A) A public and speedy trial by jury;
(B) Confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him;
(C) Have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and
(D) Require the state to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant may not be compelled to testify against himself;
(3) Informing him of the maximum possible sentence and minimum sentence for the crime charged and any possible increased sentence by reason of the fact of a prior conviction or convictions ... (emphasis added).
Ind.Code Sec. 35-35-1-2 (Burns 1981).
The court's inquiry of Followell satisfied all the statutory requirements save one, the warning that a defendant's criminal history can serve as an aggravating factor to enhance a presumptive term. Instead, after informing Followell of the minimum and maximum penalties for a class B felony,
Page 648
the judge asked him if he understood that the court could impose the maximum sentence of twenty years, to which Followell replied, "Yes." Record at 71.After accepting the plea, the court sentenced Followell to the maximum term of twenty years. Among the aggravating factors which the court found to support the enhancement were Followell's three juvenile adjudications (which would have been felony convictions had he been an adult) and a misdemeanor conviction as an adult. The court also listed as aggravators the fact that a deadly weapon was used in the commission of the crime, and that the victim, a 14-year-old girl, would bear the psychological scar of Followell's actions for the rest of her life.
Two years later, Followell petitioned for post-conviction relief, claiming that his plea was not made voluntarily or intelligently because the judge did not inform him that his prior juvenile and adult criminal history could be used to support...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trujillo v. State , No. 71A03–1102–PC–73.
...decision to enter the plea. [962 N.E.2d 114] State v. Lime, 619 N.E.2d 601 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), trans. denied (citing Followell v. State, 578 N.E.2d 646 (Ind.1991)). Trujillo couches his claim in terms of ineffective assistance of counsel. In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assista......
-
State v. Lime, No. 49A04-9304-CR-132
...establishing his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind.Post-Conviction Rule 1(5); Followell v. State (1991), Ind., 578 N.E.2d 646, In State v. Cleland (1985), Ind., 477 N.E.2d 537, our supreme court examined a similar question. The petitioner rested on his petitions and......
-
Beldon v. State, No. 43A03-9502-PC-63
...failed to give one of the statutory advisements does not by itself sustain the petitioner's burden. Followell v. State (1991), Ind., 578 N.E.2d 646, 648, reh. denied. The petitioner must establish specific facts from which the trier of fact could conclude by a preponderance of the evidence ......
-
State v. Drysdale, No. 82A01-9609-PC-305
...petitioner has the burden of proving his claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1 § 5; Followell v. State, 578 N.E.2d 646, 648 (Ind.1991). When the State appeals from an order granting post-conviction relief, the standard of review for a negative judgment does ......
-
Trujillo v. State , No. 71A03–1102–PC–73.
...decision to enter the plea. [962 N.E.2d 114] State v. Lime, 619 N.E.2d 601 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), trans. denied (citing Followell v. State, 578 N.E.2d 646 (Ind.1991)). Trujillo couches his claim in terms of ineffective assistance of counsel. In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assista......
-
State v. Lime, No. 49A04-9304-CR-132
...establishing his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind.Post-Conviction Rule 1(5); Followell v. State (1991), Ind., 578 N.E.2d 646, In State v. Cleland (1985), Ind., 477 N.E.2d 537, our supreme court examined a similar question. The petitioner rested on his petitions and......
-
Beldon v. State, No. 43A03-9502-PC-63
...failed to give one of the statutory advisements does not by itself sustain the petitioner's burden. Followell v. State (1991), Ind., 578 N.E.2d 646, 648, reh. denied. The petitioner must establish specific facts from which the trier of fact could conclude by a preponderance of the evidence ......
-
State v. Drysdale, No. 82A01-9609-PC-305
...petitioner has the burden of proving his claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1 § 5; Followell v. State, 578 N.E.2d 646, 648 (Ind.1991). When the State appeals from an order granting post-conviction relief, the standard of review for a negative judgment does ......