Linthicum v. State
| Decision Date | 09 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 1182S437,1182S437 |
| Citation | 465 N.E.2d 701 |
| Parties | Philip R. LINTHICUM, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender of Indiana, Sheila A. Zwickey, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Kathleen Ramson Radford, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a denial of a petition for post-conviction relief. Philip R. Linthicum, was convicted of robbery, a class B felony, Ind.Code Sec. 35-42-5-1 pursuant to a plea of guilty. He was sentenced to a determinate term of ten years plus an additional ten years for aggravating circumstances.
Appellant raises one issue on appeal: whether the post-conviction court erred by finding and concluding that the appellant was properly advised at his guilty plea hearing regarding the effect of his prior record on the sentence he would receive as required by Ind.Code Sec. 35-4.1-1-3(d).
The facts relevant to the issue show that appellant was charged with robbery and arraigned in open court on September 11, 1981 at which time he entered a plea of guilty as charged. At the arraignment, the trial court advised appellant of the maximum and minimum sentence he could receive, but the trial court did not advise the appellant that his prior convictions would have an impact upon the length of his sentence. On October 23, 1981 appellant was sentenced to a determinate term of ten years plus ten years for aggravating circumstances. Appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief. On August 24, 1982 the trial court denied the appellant's petition for post-conviction relief.
A plea of guilty is an admission or confession of guilt made in court before a judge. It is also a waiver of specific constitutional rights. In order to uphold a guilty plea as knowing and voluntary the record must provide a sufficient basis for the conclusion that the appellant was meaningfully informed of the rights and law detailed in Ind.Code Sec. 35-4.1-1-3 (Burns 1979); Turman v. State, (1979) 271 Ind. 332, 392 N.E.2d 483, 487. See Boykin v. Alabama, (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, 280.
While strict compliance with the terms of the statute is required, German v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 234 (Givan, C.J. and Pivarnik, J., dissenting), the exact language of the statute need not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gray v. State
...that the sentencing choice might be influenced by aggravating or mitigating circumstances." 465 N.E.2d at 727. See also Linthicum v. State (1984) Ind., 465 N.E.2d 701. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial court's failure to inform Gray that prior convictions could increase ......
-
Linthicum v. State
...but this Court reversed and remanded the action with instructions to allow Linthicum to withdraw his former plea. Linthicum v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 701. The State then filed a habitual offender charge against Linthicum. After a trial Linthicum was convicted of robbery, a class B f......
-
Henry v. State, 49S028611PC955
...Ind., 499 N.E.2d 207, and Merriweather v. State (1986), Ind., 499 N.E.2d 209, and based upon this court's holding in Linthicum v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 701, that a trial court does not comply with the requirement of the statute that the defendant be informed of the possibility of a......
-
Pharris v. State, 1084S402
...for the proposition that the above-quoted statute must be strictly complied with, else the conviction faces reversal. Linthicum v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 701; Davis v. State (1983), Ind., 446 N.E.2d 1317; Early v. State (1982), Ind., 442 N.E.2d 1071; German v. State (1981), Ind., 42......