Griffith v. State

Decision Date06 January 1975
Docket NumberNo. 1--674A95,1--674A95
Citation163 Ind.App. 11,321 N.E.2d 576
PartiesWalter Wayne GRIFFITH, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

John R. Brant, II, of Harlan, Schussler, Keller, Brant & Boston, Richmond, for defendant-appellant.

Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Gary M. Crist, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.

LOWDERMILK, Judge.

Defendant-appellant (Griffith) brings this appeal from his conviction of the offense of Assault and Battery with Intent to Gratify Sexual Desires.

Griffith was arrested and charged by affidavit on August 28, 1972. On August 30, 1972, Griffith was arraigned, entered a plea of not guilty, and the trial date was set for December 4, 1972. On October 31, 1972, Griffith filed with the court a motion to produce and to take a deposition. This motion was granted and the trial date was indefinitely postponed. Griffith made no objection to the continuance.

Griffith retained counsel shortly after his arrest and his counsel promptly began plea bargaining negotiations with the prosecutor involved. After several offers and counter-offers the agreement reached was that Griffith would spend six months in the Wayne County Jail and would thereafter plead guilty to the charge, and that Griffith would be allowed to request treatment as a sexual deviant, pursuant to IC 1971, 31--11--3.1--1, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 9--4001 (Burns 1974 Supp.), without objection by the State.

On April 19, 1973, Griffith was re-arraigned without objection and his plea was voluntarily changed from 'not guilty' to 'guilty,' and his attorney at that time requested that Griffith be examined for possible treatment under the sexual deviant act. The court accepted the guilty plea but reserved judgment pending a pre-sentence investigation and report. Following a hearing held on May 31, 1973, the court found that Griffith was 'probably' a criminal sexual deviant, and ordered his transfer to the Richmond State Hospital where the defendant was to remain for a period not to exceed 120 days for testing and observation.

The doctors and officials at the state hospital communicated to the Wayne Circuit Court that in their opinion Griffith was anti-social and not treatable at the institution pursuant to the sexual deviant act and recommended confinement in a security institution to contain his 'dangerous proclivities.' Griffith was then returned to the Wayne County Jail on September 10, 1973.

On December 5, 1973, Griffith filed a verified petition seeking withdrawal of his guilty plea and seeking a discharge. Pursuant to said motion to withdraw a hearing was held on December 12th and 13th, 1973. On January 8, 1974, the court overruled Griffith's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and for discharge.

Griffith presents two issues of claimed error as follows--the trial court erred in not permitting him to withdraw his plea of guilty to correct a manifest injustice, and, secondly, that he should have been granted a discharge, inasmuch as he was detained in jail for a continuous period of more than six months without trial.

Pursuant to Ind.Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(7) we shall treat these issues as one.

Ind.Rules of Procedure, Criminal Rule 4(A) reads, in part, as follows:

'(A) Defendant in jail. No defendant shall be detained in jail on a charge, without a trial, for a period in aggregate embracing more than six (6) months from the date the criminal charge against such defendant is filed, or from the date of his arrest on such charge (whichever is later); except where a continuance was had on his motion, or the delay was caused by his act, . . .'

Griffith's motion to produce and to take a deposition is a delay causing procedure which extends the time in which he must be brought to trial six months from the date the motion was filed.

Chief Justice Arterburn, in State ex rel. Banks v. Hamilton Superior Court (1973), Ind., 304 N.E.2d 776, said:

'The record shows a number of motions by the Relators asking for inspection of the grand jury minutes, for production of certain evidence and for suppression of a confession along with the motion for a change of venue. We find from the record alone that the Relators have been guilty of acts on their part in delaying the case.'

In Shack v. State (1972), Ind., 288 N.E.2d 155, our Supreme Court determined that delay caused by the appellant did not terminate until December 12, 1969, when the motion appellant had filed October 17, 1969, was not ruled upon until December 12, 1969. The court, in that case, said further:

'. . . In State v. Hawley (1971), Ind., 268 N.E.2d 80, this Court held that where a defendant filed a motion for severance and a separate trial, he was not entitled to credit for delaying time caused by the motion, and the six-month rule for discharge began to run anew from the date the motion for severance was denied. . . .'

288 N.E.2d 155, at 160.

We are constrained to hold that C.R. 4(A) does not apply in the case at bar and Griffith was not prejudiced by not having been re-arraigned until April 19, 1973.

Griffith next contends that the court abused its discretion in overruling defendant's petition to withdraw his plea of guilty in that defendant's plea of guilty was not freely, voluntarily, understandingly, and knowingly entered and the court's finding that the defendant entered a plea of guilty understandingly and knowingly was not supported by sufficient evidence; that the court's finding there would be no manifest miscarriage of justice by failing to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty was not supported by sufficient evidence.

The court of its own volition zealously guarded the rights of the defendant by conducting a two day hearing on Griffith's petition to withdraw his guilty plea and for discharge.

The allowance of the withdrawal of a guilty plea...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Stacks v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 22 Febrero 1978
    ...trial court is not required to accept a plea bargain arrangement entered into between the State and the defendant. Griffith v. State (1975), Ind.App., 321 N.E.2d 576, 579. The reasoning supporting this holding was aptly stated in Note, Guilty Plea Bargaining: Compromises by Prosecutor to Se......
  • Moreno v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 5 Noviembre 1975
    ...day of delay chargeable to the defendant but is merely tolled by the period of delay caused by defendant's acts.9 See Griffith v. State (1975), Ind.App., 321 N.E.2d 576.10 There are no cases under IC 1971, 35--1--26--2; Ind.Ann.Stat. § 9--1402 (Burns Supp.1974); IC 1971, 35--1--27--1; Ind.A......
  • Clemons v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 5 Agosto 1981
    ...v. New York, (1971) 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427; Stacks v. State, (1978) Ind.App., 372 N.E.2d 1201; Griffith v. State, (1975) 163 Ind.App. 11, 321 N.E.2d 576. Therefore, the act of rejecting a plea bargain is not sufficient of itself to establish the bias and prejudice of the......
  • Barnes v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 24 Mayo 1982
    ...v. New York, (1971) 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427; Stacks v. State, (1978) Ind.App., 372 N.E.2d 1201; Griffith v. State, (1975) 163 Ind.App. 11, 321 N.E.2d 576." When a plea bargain is presented to the trial judge, he has the right and the responsibility to consider the matter ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT