Griffin v. State
| Decision Date | 19 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 383S79,383S79 |
| Parties | Jefferson Robert GRIFFIN, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Kurt A. Young, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., John D. Shuman, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant-Appellant Jefferson Robert Griffin, Jr., and two accomplices brutally beat two men while all were inmates in the Jay County Jail on December 15, 1979. Appellant was charged with murder and battery. The Jay Circuit Court transferred Appellant's case to the Wayne Superior Court by agreement of the parties. Appellant subsequently tendered pleas of guilty to class B felony voluntary manslaughter and to class C felony battery pursuant to a written plea bargain agreement entered into with the State. The trial court accepted the agreement, granted Appellant's motion to enter guilty pleas and sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of twenty-five years imprisonment. The trial court committed Appellant to the Indiana Department of Corrections. Appellant now directly appeals and argues that the trial court erred by denying his verified motion for specific performance of his plea agreement.
Appellant's written plea bargain agreement included the following provision:
"3) The State of Indiana shall recommend to the Court the following with respect to the defendant's sentence:
* * *
c. Other: That the Defendant serve his period of confinement in a non-contiguous state penal institution pursuant to the Interstate Corrections Compact, I.C. 11-8-4-1 et seq." (emphasis added).
Appellant now complains because he was committed to the custody of the Indiana Department of Corrections.
It is well-settled that the terms of a plea agreement are binding upon a trial court when accepted by the trial court insofar as said terms are within the power of the trial court to order. Ind.Code Sec. 35-5-6-2(b) (Burns 1979) [repealed effective September 1, 1982]; Ind.Code Sec. 35-35-3-3(d) (Burns Supp.1983); see Phillips v. State, (1982) Ind., 441 N.E.2d 201. In the present case, Appellant mistakenly brings his appeal based upon one portion of his plea agreement which he interprets out of its proper and necessary context. Appellant specifically argues that his plea agreement contained a provision whereby the State was bound to incarcerate Appellant in a "non-contiguous state penal institution." The agreement, however, contains no such promise. The agreement simply provides that the State shall recommend to the trial court that Appellant be incarcerated out of state. The trial court clearly was not bound to incarcerate Appellant outside of Indiana as the trial court had absolutely no power to dictate the terms of Appellant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hooker v. State
...authority to accept or reject a guilty plea and its even broader authority to accept or reject a plea agreement. In Griffin v. State, 461 N.E.2d 1123, 1124 (Ind.1984), the court stated that "[i]t is well-settled that the terms of a plea agreement are binding upon a trial court when accepted......
-
Crose v. State
...contemplated benefits of a plea bargain cannot be compelled if such benefits are beyond the court's ability to confer. Griffin v. State (1984) Ind., 461 N.E.2d 1123. 7 Likewise, the remedy of specific performance of the agreement is rendered inapplicable if the promise made by the State thr......
-
Bezy v. Loftus
...litigation have agreed and the trial court has accepted the agreement, the agreement binds the court and the parties. Griffin v. State (1984), Ind., 461 N.E.2d 1123, 1124. Both statutes and court decisions provide remedies for breach of a plea agreement. See, e.g., Santobello v. New York (1......
-
Parker v. State
...benefits of a plea bargain cannot be compelled if such benefits are beyond the court's ability to confer, see, e.g. Griffin v. State (1984), Ind., 461 N.E.2d 1123 and Niece v. State (1983), Ind.App., 456 N.E.2d 1081, or beyond the power of the court to honor. See, Payne v. State (1988), Ind......