Martin v. State, No. 2-1183-A-417

Docket NºNo. 2-1183-A-417
Citation470 N.E.2d 733
Case DateNovember 13, 1984
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 733

470 N.E.2d 733
Doren L. MARTIN, Appellant (Defendant Below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
No. 2-1183-A-417.
Court of Appeals of Indiana,
Second District.
Nov. 13, 1984.

Page 734

Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Melanie C. Conour, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Cheryl L. Greiner, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

SULLIVAN, Judge.

Petitioner, Doren L. Martin (Martin) appeals the denial of a petition for post-conviction relief. In 1975, Martin was convicted of Armed Robbery after a plea of guilty. Martin contends the guilty plead was invalid because, at the guilty plea hearing, the trial court failed to advise him of his right to a public and speedy trial, to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to have compulsory process for witnesses in his favor. The State maintains that the overall record showed Martin was sufficiently apprised of all the rights waived and that the post-conviction petition was barred by laches. The Marion County trial court found that the plea of guilty was entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily and that Martin's petition, filed July 15, 1983, was barred by laches, as this remedy was available to him since April 11, 1975.

Martin alleges the trial court erred in concluding that:

(1) Martin's guilty plea was entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily after a full advisement of all constitutional rights waived by such plea, and

(2) The post-conviction petition was barred by the doctrine of laches.

In challenging the denial of his post-conviction petition, Martin has the burden of proving his allegations by a preponderance

Page 735

of the evidence. Ind.Rules of Procedure, Post Conviction Rule 1, Sec. 5. A decision will be reversed only where the evidence is without conflict and leads to a conclusion contrary to that reached by the trial court. Early v. State (1982) Ind., 442 N.E.2d 1071.

In reaching its conclusion that the plea was validly entered, the post-conviction court referred to the enumeration of rights contained in the plea agreement and in the Motion to Withdraw Former Plea of Not Guilty (Motion). Additionally, the trial court found that Martin was represented by "competent counsel", defined in part as counsel who advised a client of the rights waived by pleading guilty. The written plea agreement, the Motion and the advice of counsel appear to have been the determinative factors in the post-conviction court's decision that Martin was meaningfully informed of the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty.

Until October 10, 1984, the binding Indiana case precedent clearly called for a reversal of a conviction obtained pursuant to a guilty plea under circumstances such as before us. However, on that date our supreme court decided Williams v. State Ind., 468 N.E.2d 1036 holding as follows:

"In German v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 234, this Court held that a written plea agreement entered into beyond the sight and hearing of the court may not be considered an adequate substitute for specifically addressing the subject on so fundamental a matter as the concept of waiver. German, was decided December 3, 1981. However, the guilty plea hearing in the case at bar was held on December 4, 1979. Consequently, we will use the standard of review employed in Neeley v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 588, 382 N.E.2d 714, and look to the entire record to determine if petitioner was fully advised of and understood his constitutional rights. Cf. Turman v. State (1979) 271 Ind. 332, 392 N.E.2d 483."

The Williams case, therefore, has impliedly overruled all cases which applied German v. State (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 234 retroactively, i.e., to guilty pleas entered prior to December 3, 1981.

Representative of such cases involving right advisement failure by court, notwithstanding a record reflecting knowledge and understanding of the rights, are: Anderson v. State (Decided July 23, 1984) Ind., 465 N.E.2d 1101 (guilty plea February 5, 1979); Davis v. State (Decided April 13, 1983) Ind., 446 N.E.2d 1317 (guilty plea prior to April 5, 1978); Early v. State (Decided December 22, 1982) Ind., 442 N.E.2d 1071 (guilty plea April 10, 1979); Morrison v. State (2d Dist., August 9, 1984) Ind.App., 466 N.E.2d 783 (guilty plea 1974); Davis v. State (1st Dist., June 18, 1984) Ind.App., 464 N.E.2d 926 (guilty plea October 1, 1976); see also Austin v. State (decided August 9, 1984) Ind., 466 N.E.2d 445.

Inasmuch as the guilty plea before us was entered in 1975, we must look to the record to determine if Martin was fully advised of, and understood his constitutional rights. In light of the facts heretofore set forth we necessarily conclude that the guilty plea was not invalidated by the failure of the trial judge to specifically advise him of his right to a public and speedy trial, to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to have compulsory process for witnesses in his favor.

The application of Williams v. State, supra, to the case before us, however, does...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Martin v. State, No. 785S275.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • July 10, 1985
    ...this Court, as hereinafter set forth, we grant the State's petition to transfer, order the opinions of the Court of Appeals reported at 470 N.E.2d 733 and 474 N.E.2d 536 vacated and affirm the trial court's judgment denying the relief sought by Petitioner, i.e. the withdrawal of his guilty ......
  • Jackson v. State, No. 19A05-0211-PC-555.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 16, 2003
    ...hearing or in this appeal does not permit us to ignore such fundamental error at the appellate level.'" Id. (quoting Martin v. State, 470 N.E.2d 733, 735 (Ind.Ct.App.1984)). Nevertheless, in Sanders, our Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that claims of fundamental error are generally n......
  • Martin v. State, No. 4-1183A398
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 17, 1984
    ...the supreme court's prior decisions applying German retrospectively have been impliedly overruled. See Martin v. State, (1984) Ind.App., 470 N.E.2d 733. Thus, in reviewing Martin's guilty plea, we will affirm if the entire record of her guilty plea hearing shows that she understood what rig......
  • Martin v. State, No. 2-1183A417
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 21, 1985
    ...FOR REHEARING Doren L. Martin (Martin) petitions for rehearing of our decision and opinion in Martin v. State (1984) 2d Dist., Ind.App., 470 N.E.2d 733. Based upon Williams v. State (1984) Ind., 468 N.E.2d 1036, we held that a review of the entire record of the guilty plea proceedings indic......
4 cases
  • Martin v. State, No. 785S275.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • July 10, 1985
    ...this Court, as hereinafter set forth, we grant the State's petition to transfer, order the opinions of the Court of Appeals reported at 470 N.E.2d 733 and 474 N.E.2d 536 vacated and affirm the trial court's judgment denying the relief sought by Petitioner, i.e. the withdrawal of his guilty ......
  • Jackson v. State, No. 19A05-0211-PC-555.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 16, 2003
    ...hearing or in this appeal does not permit us to ignore such fundamental error at the appellate level.'" Id. (quoting Martin v. State, 470 N.E.2d 733, 735 (Ind.Ct.App.1984)). Nevertheless, in Sanders, our Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that claims of fundamental error are generally n......
  • Martin v. State, No. 4-1183A398
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 17, 1984
    ...the supreme court's prior decisions applying German retrospectively have been impliedly overruled. See Martin v. State, (1984) Ind.App., 470 N.E.2d 733. Thus, in reviewing Martin's guilty plea, we will affirm if the entire record of her guilty plea hearing shows that she understood what rig......
  • Martin v. State, No. 2-1183A417
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 21, 1985
    ...FOR REHEARING Doren L. Martin (Martin) petitions for rehearing of our decision and opinion in Martin v. State (1984) 2d Dist., Ind.App., 470 N.E.2d 733. Based upon Williams v. State (1984) Ind., 468 N.E.2d 1036, we held that a review of the entire record of the guilty plea proceedings indic......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT