Gosnell v. State, No. 981S243
| Docket Nº | No. 981S243 |
| Citation | 439 N.E.2d 1153 |
| Case Date | September 29, 1982 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 1153
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
Carr L. Darden, Acting Public Defender, James G. Holland, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Carmen L. Quintana, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Page 1154
DeBRULER, Justice.
This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for post-conviction relief in which the petitioner sought to withdraw his 1970 plea of guilty to second degree murder upon a charge of first degree murder.
The appeal raises the following issues:
(1) Did the post-conviction relief court err in determining (a) that the petitioner's plea of guilty was entered knowingly and intelligently, and (b) that the petitioner was afforded effective assistance of counsel.
(2) Did the post-conviction relief court err in determining that the petitioner was not denied his right to a speedy trial.
I.
At the hearing, when the State presented its witnesses, the petitioner's lawyer, who had not been called as a witness by the petitioner, testified in response to a question on direct examination that one of the reasons that he advised his client to plead guilty to second degree murder was that, at the time, a prisoner serving a life term for second degree murder would be eligible for parole sooner than a prisoner serving a life term for first degree murder. The petitioner claims, and the State does not dispute it, that eligibility for parole was not different for first rather than second degree murder convicts. The attorney's testimony was not, however, that there was a statutory provision or other guideline calling for different eligibility but rather that "[t]he experience back in 1970 was that a person doing life imprisonment for second degree murder was getting out, serving less time than a person doing life imprisonment for first degree."
At the hearing, petitioner sought to make the most of the statement about parole eligibility:
"Q. Would it be fair to say that when he pled guilty you gave him the impression that at some point he would be eligible for parole?
A. Oh, yes, definitely...."
Then this colloquy ensued:
"Q. Would it be fair to say that to your recollection of the case, that Mr. Gosnell's hopes for parole were an inducement for him to plead guilty to this charge?
A. He wanted to plead guilty regardless. He had made a full confession. The amount of time he had to serve was just something I was trying to do for him so he wouldn't have to serve as much. No, without parole, I don't think there would have been any difference in the plea.... [A]s I recall the death penalty was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smith, Docket No. 110110
...(1986); People v. Kay, 119 A.D.2d 834, 501 N.Y.S.2d 460 (1986); People v. Madsen, 707 Page 724 P.2d 344 (Colo.1985); Gosnell v. State, 439 N.E.2d 1153 (Ind.1982); People v. Iversen, 82 A.D.2d 895, 440 N.Y.S.2d 286 (1981); People v. King, 83 A.D.2d 674, 442 N.Y.S.2d 227 (1981); People v. Juh......
-
Hornaday v. State, 49A02-9301-PC-2
...necessitate a finding that a violation of Crim.R. 4 does not deprive a trial court of jurisdiction. In Gosnell v. State (1982) Ind., 439 N.E.2d 1153 and Lawson v. State (1986) Ind., 498 N.E.2d 1212, the defendants were brought to trial after the speedy-trial period had expired. Both defenda......
-
Village of Montpelier v. Greeno, 86-118
...Saldana (C.A. 5, 1974), 505 F.2d 628, 629; United States v. Doyle (C.A. 2, 1965), 348 F.2d 715, 718-719 2; Gosnell v. State (Ind.1982), 439 N.E.2d 1153; People v. Befeld (1980), 90 Ill.App.3d 772, 775, 46 Ill.Dec 110, 113, 413 N.E.2d 550, 553 ("A plea of guilty after denial of a motion for ......
-
State v. Anderson, 15756
...124 (1986); People v. Kay, 119 A.D.2d 834, 501 N.Y.S.2d 460 (1986); People v. Madsen, 707 P.2d 344 (Colo.1985); Gosnell v. State, 439 N.E.2d 1153 (Ind.1982); People v. Iversen, 82 A.D.2d 895, 440 N.Y.S.2d 286 (1981); People v. King, 83 A.D.2d 674, 442 N.Y.S.2d 227 (1981); People v. Juhans, ......