Moredock v. State
| Decision Date | 13 July 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 49S04-8907-PC-534,49S04-8907-PC-534 |
| Citation | 540 N.E.2d 1230 |
| Parties | Steven MOREDOCK, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
The question presented is whether a trial court may accept a plea from a defendant who pleads guilty in open court but tells a probation officer that he did not commit the crime. We hold that the court may accept such a plea.
While appellant Steven Moredock was awaiting trial in 1983 on charges of confinement and battery, the prosecution informed him that it intended to file habitual criminal charges. He decided to accept an offer to plead to confinement and battery.
Moredock executed a plea agreement and appeared in open court to plead. The prosecutor read the victim's version of the crimes from the probable cause affidavit. Deborah Walker said that she was walking toward a phone booth when Moredock grabbed her and started pulling her toward the rear of a drugstore. She managed to break away temporarily, but he grabbed her again by the left arm and pulled on her arm and neck. Moredock departed when two men approached. The trial judge asked Moredock whether this account was true. He answered that it was.
During his later presentence interview, Moredock told the probation officer that he did not attack Walker. He said he was only trying to help her.
Thereafter, the court conducted a sentencing hearing in which it asked the defendant whether he had read the presentence report. He said he had and that he had no changes to make. The court entered judgment and sentence in accordance with the plea bargain.
After serving his sentence, Moredock filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court denied his petition.
The Fourth District of the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court should not have accepted Moredock's plea because he was pleading guilty while maintaining his innocence. It relied on the opinion of the Second District Court of Appeals in Cross v. State (1988), Ind.App., 521 N.E.2d 360. In Cross the rule in Ross v. State (1983), Ind., 456 N.E.2d 420, was construed as requiring that a conviction be vacated when a trial court fails to clarify any statements in a presentence report which are inconsistent with a plea.
Ross had been offered a plea agreement in open court, which he rejected through his attorney. He later claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, saying that what he really wanted to do was accept the agreement while maintaining his innocence. This Court rejected the acceptance of such pleas, sometimes called "best interest" pleas, which have been approved for use in the federal courts. Alford v. North Carolina, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970).
We decline to extend the rule of Ross to protestations which occur outside the courtroom. Even such protestations as find their way into the record through presentence reports are fraught with the opportunity for too much mischief. Moredock has demonstrated the nature of the opportunity by arguing in a companion case that Ross requires vacating another of his convictions because his version of the offense in the presentence report is different from that given and accepted in open court. Moredock v. State (1988), Ind.App., 531 N.E.2d 247, transfer denied.
While we think a trial judge should question a defendant who makes statements like Moredock's before entering sentence, the existence of such statements is not an adequate basis for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court did not err in denying Moredock's petition on these grounds.
Since our resolution of this issue vacates the Court of Appeals disposition of Moredock's case, we now address the other issues Moredock raises concerning the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Moredock also claims...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Conley v. State
...cumulative evidence regarding how his crime was out of character does not constitute deficient performance. See Moredock v. State , 540 N.E.2d 1230, 1232 (Ind. 1989) (observing that the decision not to call a witness whose testimony is cumulative does not constitute ineffective assistance o......
-
Graham v. State
...See Mayberry v. State, 542 N.E.2d 1359, 1360–61 (Ind.Ct.App.1989) (citing Hatcher v. State, 540 N.E.2d 1241 (Ind.1989), and Moredock v. State, 540 N.E.2d 1230 (1989)), trans. denied. The current state of the law is that, at least in non-death penalty cases, a trial court in its discretion m......
-
Blauvelt v. State
...the defendant both pleads guilty and maintains his innocence at the same time.” 456 N.E.2d 420, 423 (Ind.1983). In Moredock v. State, 540 N.E.2d 1230, 1230 (Ind.1989), reh'g denied, the Court addressed whether a trial court may accept a plea from a defendant who pleads guilty in open court ......
-
Dillehay v. State
...at issue here, both our supreme court and this court have affirmed guilty pleas based on probable cause affidavits. In Moredock v. State, 540 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind.1989), the defendant entered a guilty plea but professed his innocence to a probation officer. The defendant then sought post-convic......