Moyer v. State
| Decision Date | 07 September 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-376A63,3-376A63 |
| Citation | 379 N.E.2d 1036,177 Ind.App. 461 |
| Parties | Richard MOYER, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Arthur Allan Keppen, Michigan City, for defendant-appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Jack R. O'Neill, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.
After trial by jury Moyer was convicted of theft. His appeal asserts the prosecution was barred by the double jeopardy clause and that physical evidence and his inculpatory statements should have been excluded as the product of an illegal arrest. We affirm.
The factual background discloses that Mid-Town Barbers in Michigan City was burglarized on March 19, 1975. Missing were various barber tools, a checkbook for the shop account and approximately $700 in cash, which included a large amount of change. Moyer, who was employed at the shop, had been seen inside after the shop was closed and shortly before the theft was discovered. He did not report for work the following day, or thereafter.
On March 30, 1975, Moyer was arrested in Daytona, Florida. Discovery of the checkbook, barber tools and loose change led to a confession and, ultimately, to extradition to Indiana.
After being returned to Indiana, Moyer attempted an escape. Subsequently, he and the state agreed to a plea bargain which was accepted by the trial court. Under the terms of the bargain, Moyer agreed to plead guilty to attempted jail break and, in return, was to be permitted to plead guilty to theft of property valued at less than one hundred dollars ($100) in this case. He entered the plea in this case and sentence was pronounced thereon. He then withdrew his guilty plea to the other charge. Thereupon the state moved to vacate and set aside the conviction and sentence in this case. This motion was granted and a month later Moyer was tried by jury and convicted of committing theft of property valued at more than one hundred dollars ($100.)
His first contention is that acceptance of his guilty plea and sentencing thereon barred the subsequent prosecution by subjecting him to double jeopardy.
We find, initially, that the claim of double jeopardy has been waived.
Clearly a defendant, by his actions, may waive a claim of double jeopardy. State ex rel. Lopez v. Killigrew (1931), 202 Ind. 397, 174 N.E. 808; See also Jeffers v. U. S. (1977), 432 U.S. 137, 97 S.Ct. 2207, 53 L.Ed.2d 168, Reh. den. 434 U.S. 880, 98 S.Ct. 241, 54 L.Ed.2d 164. It has long been the law that a defendant's failure to object at the time the jury is discharged (after jeopardy has attached) precludes him from asserting double jeopardy as a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. Harlan v. State (1921), 190 Ind. 322, 130 N.E. 413; Fowler v. State (1882), 85 Ind. 538. This is so even though he does make objection prior to commencement of the subsequent trial. Holt v. State (1945), 223 Ind. 217, 59 N.E.2d 563; Kelley v. State (1973), 156 Ind.App. 134, 295 N.E.2d 372.
Here, after the plea bargain was breached, the state moved to vacate the judgment in open court with the defendant and his attorney present. No objection whatever was made by the defendant to the state's motion or the court's ruling. The claim of former jeopardy was therefore waived.
However, even had a timely objection been made we would feel constrained to deny Moyer's claim. Indiana has both formalized and legitimized plea bargains by statute. See IC 35-5-6-1 Et seq. Under the statute the court must accept or reject the recommended plea bargain and if it accepts, it is bound by the terms of the bargain.
Under such circumstances, to permit a defendant to enter a plea bargain binding on the court and thereafter retain the benefit of the bargain while relieving himself of its burden, would operate as a fraud upon the court. It has long been held that the double jeopardy clause will not bar a prosecution where the first proceeding is a sham or fraud procured by the defendant for the purpose of defeating full prosecution. Watkins v. State (1879), 68 Ind. 427.
Moyer next contends that physical evidence and his confessions should have been suppressed as having been secured from an illegal search and seizure. He further contends the evidence was otherwise insufficient to sustain the conviction. We disagree.
The evidence at the suppression hearing disclosed that on March 30, 1975 Daytona police officer Watts approached from the rear a vehicle driven by Paul Sharff and in which Moyer was a passenger. The officer noticed that the license...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Munger v. State
... ... The trial court, once it accepted the sentence recommendation contained in the plea agreement, was precluded from imposing any sentence other than that required by the plea agreement. State ex rel. Goldsmith v. Marion County Superior Court (1981), Ind., 419 N.E.2d 109 at 114; Moyer v. State (1978), Ind.App., 379 N.E.2d 1036, 1038. In Goldsmith, the trial court granted the defendant's petitions for shock probation after plea agreements which contained specific terms of imprisonment had been accepted by the court. The Indiana Supreme Court mandated that the trial court's ... ...
-
Whitehead v. Richardson
... ... Jurisdiction is predicated on a federal question under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2241. It is conceded that petitioner has exhausted his available state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 103 S.Ct. 276, 74 L.Ed.2d 3. In accord with the dictates of Townsend v. Sain, ... A defendant waives his right to assert double jeopardy if he fails to object to the discharge of the jury. Moyer v. State, supra. 177 Ind.App. 461, 379 N.E.2d 1036 Whitehead concedes in his brief that no direct objection was made to the discharge of the jury. He ... ...
-
Rutledge v. State, 380S69
...out-of-state plates and was being driven erratically, and the police inferred that the driver might be in trouble. In Moyer v. State, (1975) Ind.App., 379 N.E.2d 1036, the Dayton police noticed a vehicle with the license plate attached with only one screw and the rear window obstructed so a......
-
Walker v. State
... ... If the recommendation is rejected by the trial court, its only course then is to set the matter for trial." ... State ex rel. Goldsmith v. Marion County Superior Court (1981), Ind., 419 N.E.2d 114; see also Moyer v. State (1978), Ind.App., 379 N.E.2d 1036, 1038. The Supreme Court's analysis of IC 35-5-6-2(b) applies effectively to a plea agreement in which the parties intend to condition the trial court's acceptance of the defendant's guilty plea upon the imposition of a particular sentence. To permit the ... ...