Maleck v. State
| Decision Date | 28 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-575A82,3-575A82 |
| Citation | 352 N.E.2d 540 |
| Parties | Richard Allen MALECK, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Harriette Bailey Conn, Public Defender, Peter W. Bullard, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for defendant-appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Wesley T. Wilson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.
Appellant Maleck was charged with assault and battery with intent to rape. He retained counsel and appeared for arraignment on May 8, 1973. The record indicates that he was at that time advised of his constitutional rights, and that he entered a plea of not guilty and waived trial by jury. Trial was set for June 8th but a continuance was granted until July 12th. On the 12th Maleck again appeared with counsel. He then sought leave to withdraw his prior plea and enter a plea of guilty. The court accepted Maleck's plea and on August 15, 1973, sentenced him to a term of one to ten years.
On August 29, 1974, he petitioned for post-conviction relief pursuant to Indiana Rules of Procedure, Post-Conviction Remedy Rule 1 on the grounds that he had not been adequately advised of his constitutional rights before his guilty plea was accepted. The court, after hearing, denied relief and overruled Maleck's subsequent motion to correct errors. We affirm because of the burden imposed upon a convicted person seeking post-conviction relief, and Maleck's failure to discharge that burden.
Post-conviction relief proceedings are in the nature of civil proceedings. The burden is on the petitioner to establish his entitlement to relief. If the trial court denies relief, we may not reverse unless the evidence in uncontradicted and leads to a sole reasonable conclusion contrary to that reached by the trial court. Jackson v. State (1975), Ind., 339 N.E.2d 557; Johnson v. State (1975), Ind., 337 N.E.2d 483.
Since Boykin v. Alabama (1969), 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, and Brimhall v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 153, 279 N.E.2d 557, it has been recognized that a criminal accused must have some understanding of what his constitutional rights are if he is to waive them in a guilty plea proceeding. Because of the ease of application and the removal of uncertainty where an accused later disputes his understanding of the rights he purportedly waived in entering a guilty plea, Boykin and its progeny have required that the accused be advised of his rights at an incourt proceeding so the record may reflect a basis for disposing of such subsequent contentions. Where this has not been done, we have reversed. See, e.g., Bonner v. State (1973), Ind.App., 297 N.E.2d 867.
Yet because the burden is upon the petitioner in a post-conviction proceeding, he must establish that he was not advised, even though he may do so by merely...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barfell v. State
...guilty plea record occurred in Maleck v. State (1976), 265 Ind. 604, 358 N.E.2d 116 (Arterburn, Givan, JJ., dissenting), rev'g Ind.App., 352 N.E.2d 540. There, the Court confronted the question whether an adequate advisement of rights at a previous hearing rendered valid the acceptance of a......
-
Maleck v. State, 1276S451
...before the court accepted his plea. The trial court denied his petition and the Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. Maleck v. State, (1976) Ind.App., 352 N.E.2d 540. The petition for transfer is hereby Before a guilty plea can be accepted, the trial judge must assure himself that the p......