Honaker v. State
| Decision Date | 28 May 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 39A01–1306–PC–291.,39A01–1306–PC–291. |
| Citation | 13 N.E.3d 555 (Table) |
| Parties | Jeremy L. HONAKER, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
James C. Spencer, Thomas M. Dattilo, Dattilo Law Office, Madison, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Eric P. Babbs, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
BROWN
, Judge.
Jeremy L. Honaker appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Honaker raises one issue which we revise and restate as whether the court erred in denying his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm.
In March 2006, the State charged Honaker under cause number 39D01–0603–FD–369 (“Cause No. 369”) with Count I, maintaining a common nuisance as a class D felony; Count II, invasion of privacy as a class A misdemeanor; and Count III, domestic battery as a class A misdemeanor.
In December 2006, the State charged Honaker under cause number 39D01–0612–FD–1450 (“Cause No. 1450”) with Count I, possession/use of legend drug/precursor as a class D felony; Count II, possession of cocaine as a class D felony; Count III, possession of a controlled substance as a class D felony; Count IV, possession of marijuana as a class A misdemeanor; and Count V, public intoxication as a class B misdemeanor.
In January 2007, the State charged Honaker under cause number 39D01–0701–FD–29 (“Cause No. 29”) with theft as a class D felony. Specifically, the State alleged that Honaker exerted unauthorized control over Ernest Waggoner's 357 revolver. That same month, the State charged Honaker under cause number 39D01–0701–FD–30 (“Cause No. 30”) with theft as a class D felony for exerting unauthorized control over Barbara Yount's rifles.
In each of the four cases, the trial court appointed attorney Jeffrey A. Flores to represent Honaker. On February 20, 2007, Honaker signed a plea agreement relating to all four cases. The plea agreement indicated that Honaker agreed to plead guilty to domestic battery as a class A misdemeanor under Cause No. 369, possession of cocaine as a class D felony under Cause No. 1450, theft as a class D felony under Cause No. 29, and theft as a class D felony under Cause No. 30. The plea agreement provided that Honaker would receive a sentence of one year on his conviction for domestic battery as a class A misdemeanor, two years suspended for possession of cocaine, two years with one year suspended for theft under Cause No. 29, and two years with one year suspended for theft under Cause No. 30. The agreement stated that the sentence for domestic battery would run consecutive to the sentence for possession and consecutive to the theft sentence under Cause No. 29, and that all sentences would run concurrent with the sentence for Cause No. 30. In other words, the agreement called for a total sentence of five years with three years suspended.
On March 21, 2007, the court held a guilty plea hearing in all four cases. The parties tendered a document titled Plea Agreement which the court referred to as the amended plea agreement. The amended agreement indicated that Honaker agreed to plead guilty to theft as a class D felony under Cause No. 29, theft as a class D felony under Cause No. 30, possession of cocaine as a class D felony under Cause No. 1450, and domestic battery as a class A misdemeanor under Cause No. 369. The amended agreement stated that Honaker would be sentenced to “2 years on [Cause No. 29] concurrent with 2 years on [Cause No. 30], consecutive with 2 years on [Cause No. 1450], consecutive with 1 year on [Cause No. 369]; Execute the 2 years on the [Cause No. 1450] (‘poss.Cocaine’).” State's Exhibit No. 1 at 5. Honaker signed the amended agreement.
At the beginning of the hearing, the court asked Honaker whether he understood the amended plea agreement, and Honaker replied: “Yes .” Defendant's Exhibit D at 4. The court then reviewed the charges to which Honaker was pleading guilty as well as the sentence. The court asked Honaker: “Is there anything about these charges or the penalties, that the Court has not explained to your satisfaction,” and Honaker stated: “No.” Id. at 5. The court informed Honaker that he had the rights to a public and speedy trial by jury, to cross-examine witnesses, and to call witnesses. The court also explained that Honaker was presumed to be innocent and that the State must prove each and every material allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. Honaker indicated that he understood. During questioning by the court, Honaker indicated that no promises, forces, or threats were used to obtain his guilty plea and that he wished to plead guilty. The court indicated that three of the charges constituted class D felonies, asked Honaker how he pled as to each of the four charges in the amended plea agreement, and Honaker stated that he wished to plead guilty as to each of them.
The court then asked: “Is it just the one case he doesn't ... want to do a factual basis in?” Id. at 7. Honaker's counsel replied: “No, Your Honor, we were hoping to stipulate to the probable cause with respect to each cause number that he's pleading guilty on.” Id. Upon questioning by the court, Honaker indicated that he had gone over these cases with his lawyer. The court then asked Honaker whether he agreed to allow the affidavits finding probable cause to be used to establish a factual basis for his pleas as to each individual charge, and Honaker agreed. When asked by the court whether he had read and reviewed the probable cause affidavits, Honaker stated: “Yes, but it says no contact with ... whatsoever with the victim ... uh, I have visitation set up.” Id. at 8. The court stated: “Absolutely sir, I will deal with that.” Id.
The prosecutor indicated that he had an affidavit for restitution from Waggoner. The court sentenced Honaker to one year suspended to probation for domestic battery, two years suspended to probation for each of the convictions of theft as class D felonies, and two years executed for possession of cocaine. The court also ordered that Honaker pay Waggoner restitution in the amount of $407.
On July 11, 2011, Honaker filed a petition for post-conviction relief. On July 19, 2011, the State filed its answer to Honaker's petition. On January 6, 2012, Honaker filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief. Honaker alleged that he did not knowingly and intentionally plead guilty to three separate felonies, that he thought that he was pleading guilty to one felony, possession of cocaine, and one misdemeanor, domestic battery, and that at the time of his plea he had just finished isolated incarceration in a padded cell for approximately fourteen days after he suffered physical and mental abuse by other prisoners at the Jefferson County Jail. Honaker also alleged that he received ineffective assistance because his attorney failed to adequately inform him of the contents of the plea bargain, particularly that he was pleading guilty to three felonies. That same day, Honaker also filed a document titled “PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT.” Appellant's Appendix at 57.
On January 6, 2012, and February 13, 2012, the court held an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, Honaker's trial counsel testified that there was a “give and take” in negotiation with the prosecutor which was the “operational custom.” Transcript at 10. According to trial counsel's testimony, he dealt with Honaker “a lot” after the third and fourth charges were filed and he had “a lot of communication with family members regarding” Honaker. Id. at 12–13. Trial counsel did not remember how many times he discussed the plea bargain with Honaker, but testified that once he has a deal in principle with the prosecutor, he goes to the jail to meet with his client, “walk[s] through it, explain[s] all of the circumstances that are set out, so that we don't have any problems when we get to Court such as misunderstandings.” Id. at 20. On cross-examination, trial counsel testified that he read through the plea agreement with Honaker and that Honaker expressed that he was satisfied with the agreement.
Deborah Yount, Honaker's mother, testified that Honaker had been diagnosed with dyslexia
and that she thought he was pleading to a felony and everything else would be reduced to misdemeanors. Deborah testified that she knew that no one was going to prosecute with regard to “those rifles and the bayonet.” Id. at 59. Deborah also testified that Barbara Yount was her mother and that she was seventy-four years old, very ill, and was under a doctor's order not to come to the hearing.
Honaker testified that he has dyslexia
, had seven different types of illegal drugs in his system on the night that he was arrested, was in a padded cell for twenty-seven days, and that the jail “broke” him. Id. at 69. Honaker testified that he spent a total of fifteen to twenty minutes discussing the plea bargain offers with his trial counsel and that he thought he was pleading guilty to possession of cocaine as a class D felony as the only felony. Honaker also testified that he would not have pled to the charges in the plea agreement and that he believed that he had only one felony conviction at the time he wrote a letter thanking trial counsel.
On January 28, 2013, the court denied Honaker's petition for post-conviction relief. The court's order states:
To continue reading
Request your trial