Gibson v. State, No. 285S68
| Docket Nº | No. 285S68 |
| Citation | 490 N.E.2d 297 |
| Case Date | March 26, 1986 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 297
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Respondent below).
Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender of Indiana, Hope Fey, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Cheryl L. Greiner, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
PIVARNIK, Justice.
Defendant-Appellant Ronald J. Gibson pleaded guilty in the Carroll County Circuit Court to burglary, a class C felony, and being an habitual offender. His five (5) year sentence for burglary was enhanced by an additional thirty (30) years upon being found an habitual offender, the sentence
Page 298
to run concurrently with similar sentences from two other counties. Appellant filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief which the trial court denied. He now appeals this denial and attacks the propriety of his plea agreement.A plea agreement was filed with the trial court subsequent to Appellant being charged with burglary and being an habitual offender. A guilty plea hearing was held at which Appellant was advised of his rights. Appellant testified he was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and that he did not suffer from any mental or emotional disability nor had he been treated for any mental illness. His attorney stated Appellant had been diagnosed as being depressive and having mental problems, but had been found competent to stand trial three months earlier. Appellant testified he was aware of and understood the proceedings, the plea agreement, the charges, and the possible sentences, and that his alleged mental illness did not affect his ability to understand the instant proceedings. Appellant did maintain, however, that he could not recall any specific details of the burglary or his prior felony convictions.
Appellant first alleges there was an insufficient factual basis for the guilty plea to be accepted. Trial courts may not accept guilty pleas unless satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea. Ind. Code Sec. 35-4.1-1-4(b) (Burns 1979). To prove an insufficient factual basis Appellant keys on his inability to remember details of the burglary.
In reviewing allegations of error based on sufficiency of evidence we neither weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses, but rather, look to the evidence most favorable to the State to determine whether there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court finding. Harris v. State (1985), Ind., 480 N.E.2d 932, 937. Appellant neither claims nor does he show that his failure to recall details of his crime amounted to a protestation of innocence. This case does not, therefore, fall within the rule enunciated, as follows, in Ross v. State (1983), Ind., 456 N.E.2d 420, 423: "We hold, as a matter of law that a judge may not accept a plea of guilty when the defendant both pleads guilty and maintains his innocence at the same time." Appellant merely argues there was insufficient evidence to support the trial judge's finding of a factual basis to support the guilty plea, buttressing this argument with the fact that he could not recall details surrounding the crime. Evidence other than the sworn testimony of the defendant can serve...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steele v. Duckworth, No. 3:94cv0101 AS.
...defendant is able to understand the proceedings and assist in his defense, no further hearing is necessary. Gibson v. State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 297, In the present case, the post-conviction court found that Steele had failed to carry his burden of proof on his allegation that he did no......
-
Butler v. State, No. 45S03-9502-PC-247
...a variety of sources and is not limited to sworn testimony. Bates v. State (1988), Ind., 517 N.E.2d 379; Gibson v. State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 297. The court may base its decision on its inquiry alone, so long as the questions presented are sufficiently detailed to show guilt. Questions ......
-
Smith v. State, No. 3-1085A265
...intelligence of the child, the appellate court will only review his decision for an abuse of discretion. Gibson v. State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 297, 299. While our statute, IC 34-1-14-5, presumes that children under ten years of age are incompetent to testify, the test for determining a c......
-
Cross v. State, No. 49A02-8701-PC-00017
...a factual basis, protestation of innocence will preclude acceptance of a guilty plea. To the same effect is Gibson v. State (1986) Ind., 490 N.E.2d 297. Cross's claim of innocence, appearing in a report before the court prior to acceptance of the guilty plea, placed upon the hearing court a......
-
Steele v. Duckworth, No. 3:94cv0101 AS.
...defendant is able to understand the proceedings and assist in his defense, no further hearing is necessary. Gibson v. State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 297, In the present case, the post-conviction court found that Steele had failed to carry his burden of proof on his allegation that he did no......
-
Butler v. State, No. 45S03-9502-PC-247
...a variety of sources and is not limited to sworn testimony. Bates v. State (1988), Ind., 517 N.E.2d 379; Gibson v. State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 297. The court may base its decision on its inquiry alone, so long as the questions presented are sufficiently detailed to show guilt. Questions ......
-
Smith v. State, No. 3-1085A265
...intelligence of the child, the appellate court will only review his decision for an abuse of discretion. Gibson v. State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 297, 299. While our statute, IC 34-1-14-5, presumes that children under ten years of age are incompetent to testify, the test for determining a c......
-
Cross v. State, No. 49A02-8701-PC-00017
...a factual basis, protestation of innocence will preclude acceptance of a guilty plea. To the same effect is Gibson v. State (1986) Ind., 490 N.E.2d 297. Cross's claim of innocence, appearing in a report before the court prior to acceptance of the guilty plea, placed upon the hearing court a......