Jones v. State
Decision Date | 10 October 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 2-1283A465,2-1283A465 |
Parties | James JONES, Appellant (Petitioner), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Respondent). |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Appeal from Marion Superior Court, Marion County; Charles C. Daugherty, Judge.
Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Melanie C. Conour, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Amy Schaeffer Good, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
SULLIVAN, Judge concurring in denial of petition for rehearing.
I concur in the denial of the State's Petition for Rehearing. In doing so, I feel it necessary to set forth what I believe to be an implicit but unstated basis for our adherence to the case precedent represented by German v. State (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 234, and its progeny.
In the original opinion in this cause, Jones v. State (2d Dist., 1984) Ind.App., 467 N.E.2d 757, we stated:
Although some of the statutorily enumerated matters of which a defendant must be advised do not in themselves cover specific rights afforded by the U.S. or Indiana constitutions, they are nevertheless of constitutional dimension. One may not be held to have knowingly and intelligently waived various rights which are clearly constitutional, e.g., the right to trial by jury, unless he is also advised of matters set forth in the statute. A defendant might well choose to not waive his constitutional right to trial by jury if he is aware that he might receive consecutive sentences pursuant to a guilty plea. It is for this reason that a defendant must be advised of the possibility of consecutive sentences and it is for this reason that the statutorily required advisements are of constitutional dimension.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sides v. State
...a plea of guilty." This effort was unavailing, however, for in Jones v. State (1984) 2d Dist.Ind.App., 467 N.E.2d 757, 760, reh. denied 469 N.E.2d 39, this court "[M]ost important for our purposes, is this recent Indiana Supreme Court language: 'Strict compliance with our statute [IC 35-35-......