Lockhart v. State

• Decision Date: 09 November 1971
• Docket Number: No. 1270S302,1270S302
• Citation: 27 Ind.Dec. 509,257 Ind. 349,274 N.E.2d 523
• Parties: Edward LOCKHART, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 523

274 N.E.2d 523

257 Ind. 349

Edward LOCKHART, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 1270S302.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Nov. 9, 1971.

Harriette Bailey Conn, Indiana Public Defender of Indiana, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Darrel K. Diamond, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

GIVAN, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the trial court overruling appellant's verified petition to withdraw a plea of guilty and set aside a judgment of conviction. The appellant had been charged with the crime of inflicting physical injury while engaged in the commission of a robbery as defined in Burns' Ind.Stat., 1956 Repl., § 10--4101, IC 1971, 35--13--4--6. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the lesser included offense of robbery. Subsequently he submitted his verified petition to withdraw his plea of guilty and set aside the judgment of conviction, the denial of which is the basis for this appeal.

Appellant along with two co-defendants had been arrested and charged as above indicated. All three defendants gave incriminating statements following their arrest. Appellant's co-defendants entered pleas of guilty and in so doing made statements implicating the appellant. After hearing the statements of his co-defendants the appellant entered his plea of guilty. At the hearing on his plea he was asked by the trial judge if he had been threatened or if any promises had been made to him in order to get him to plead one way or the other. To this question the appellant answered 'no'. He further stated that he had consulted with his attorney and understood the nature of the charge.

The appellee raises the question in this case that the appellant has not complied with all of the requirments of our Rule PC 1(C); however the appellee suggested that the appeal nevertheless be handled as a PC 1 proceeding. With this we agree. See Langley v. State (1971), Ind., 267 N.E.2d 538, 25 Ind.Dec. 118.

We now turn to the contentions of the appellant.

Appellant first contends that the confessions taken by the police were illegally obtained. It is appellant's claim that the illegality 'rests upon confession under fear of an impending life sentence, which fear was influential upon juvenile co-defendants as upon defendant Lockhart, appellant herein * * *.' There was no confession of the appellant introduced in evidence other than his in court plea of guilty. It thus appears appellant is attempting to argue that his guilty plea was not entered voluntarily and freely in view of the prior confessions.

Appellant also contends that his plea of guilty was involuntary due to the fear of an impending life sentence. Where, as here, the appellant is alleging that he has been denied his constitutional rights and that such a denial has led to an involuntary plea of guilty, the trial court must examine the facts and determine whether or not the plea of guilty was in fact entered voluntarily, knowingly and freely. a situation very similar to the case at bar was presented to the Supreme Court of the United States in Brady v. United States (1970), 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747. In that case the defendant had entered a plea of guilty after a co-defendant had given a confession and entered a plea of guilty, and was known by the defendant to be available to testify against him. The defendant argued that this situation coerced him to enter a plea of guilty. He further contended that the death penalty provisions of the statute under which he was charged also operated to coerce his plea of guilty. The Supreme Court of the United States, beginning at page 749, 90 S.Ct. at page 1469, made the following observations:

'The voluntariness of Brady's plea can be determined only by considering all of the relevant circumstances surrounding it. Cf. Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 513, 83 S.Ct. 1336, 1343, 10 L.Ed.2d 513, (520) (1963); Leyra v. Denno, 347 U.S. 556, 558, 74 S.Ct. 716, 717, 98 L.Ed. 948, (950) (1954). One of these circumstances was the possibility of a heavier sentence following a guilty verdict after a trial. It may be that Brady, faced with a strong case against him and recognizing that his chances for acquittal were slight, preferred to plead guilty and thus limit the penalty to life imprisonment rather than to elect a jury trial which could result in a death penalty. But even if we assume that Brady would not have pleaded guilty except for the death penalty provision of § 1201(a), this assumption merely identifies the penalty provisions as a 'but for' cause of his plea. That the statute caused the plea in this sense does not necessarily prove that the plea was coerced and invalid as an involuntary act.

'The State to some degree encourages pleas of guilty at every important step in the criminal process. For some people, their breach of a State's law is alone sufficient reason for surrendering themselves and accepting punishment. For others, apprehension and charge, both threatening acts by the Government, jar them into admitting their guilt. In still other cases, the post-indictment accumulation of evidence may convince the defendant and his counsel that a trial is not worth the agony and expense to the defendant and his family. All these pleas of guilty are valid in spite of the State's responsibility for some of the factors motivating the pleas; the pleas are no more improperly compelled than is the decision by a defendant at the close of the State's evidence at trial that he must take the stand or face certain conviction.'

We agree with the above language and hold that it is equally applicable to the case at bar. The Supreme Coiurt in Brady, at page 751, 90 S.Ct. at 1470, continued:

'Insofar as the voluntariness of his plea is concerned, there is little to differentiate Brady from (1) the defendant, in a jurisdiction where the judge and jury have the same range of sentencing power, who pleads guilty because his lawyer advises him that the judge will very probably be more lenient than the jury; (2) the defendant, in a jurisdiction where the judge alone has sentencing power, who is advised by counsel that the judge is normally more lenient with defendants who plead guilty than with those who go to trial; (3) the defendant who is permitted by prosecutor and judge to plead guilty to a lesser offense included in the offense charged; and (4) the defendant who pleads guilty to certain counts with the understanding that other charges will be dropped. In each of these situations, as in Brady's case, the defendant might never plead guilty absent the possibility or certainty that the plea will result in a lesser penalty than the sentence that could be imposed after a trial and a verdict of guilty. We decline to hold, however, that a guilty plea is compelled and invalid under the Fifth Amendment whenever motivated by the defendant's desire to accept the certainty or probability of a lesser penalty rather than face a wider range of possibilities extending from acquittal to conviction and a higher penalty authorized by law for the crime charged.'

In the case at bar the fears of the appellant brought about by the surrounding circumstances cannot be considered the type of coercion which would require the trial court to permit withdrawal of the guilty plea. Under the circumstances the appellant was simply placed in a situation where he was required to make a judgment as to the best course of action for him to take. We cannot say that his decision to plead guilty constituted an involuntary situation simply because of the existence of overwhelming evidence and the threat of a life sentence.

It was certainly within the discretion of the prosecuting attorney to recommend a lesser change in exchange for appellant's guilty plea. Taylor v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 236, 236 N.E.2d 825, 14 Ind.Dec. 303. Appellant's acceptance of this opportunity to enter a plea to a lesser included offense was not rendered involuntary because of the threat of the greater offense.

Appellant also states that his own confession operated as a coercive force inducing him to enter a plea of guilty. The Supreme Court of the United States in McMann v. Richardson (1970), 397 U.S. 759, at pages 768 and 769, 90 S.Ct. 1441, at page 1447, 25 L.Ed.2d 763, stated:

'* * * For the defendant who considers his confession involuntary and hence unusable against him at a trial, tendering a plea of guilty would seem a most improbable alternative. The sensible course would be to contest his guilt, prevail on his confession claim at trial, on appeal, or, if necessary, in a collateral proceeding, and win acquittal, however guilty he might be. The books are full of cases in New York and elsewhere, where the defendant has made this choice and has prevailed. If he nevertheless pleads guilty the plea can hardly be blamed on the confession which in his view was inadmissible evidence and no proper part of the State's case. Since by hypothesis the evidence aside from the confession is weak and the defendant has no reasons of his own to plead, a guilty plea in such circumstances is nothing less than a refusal to present his federal claims to the state court in the first instance- --a choice by the defendant to take the benefits, if any, of a plea of guilty and then to pursue his coercedconfession claim in collateral proceedings. Surely later allegations that the confession rendered his plea involuntary would appear incredible, and whether his plain bypass of state remedies was an intelligent act depends on whether he was so incompetently advised by counsel concerning the forum in which he should first present his federal claim that the Constitution will afford him another chance to plead.

'A more credible explanation for a plea of guilty by a defendant who would go to trial except for his prior confession is his prediction that the law will permit his admissions to be used against him by the trier of fact. At least the probability of the State's...