Reffett v. State, No. 69A01-9003-CR-95

Docket NºNo. 69A01-9003-CR-95
Citation557 N.E.2d 1068
Case DateAugust 06, 1990
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 1068

557 N.E.2d 1068
Marvin REFFETT, Defendant-Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee.
No. 69A01-9003-CR-95.
Court of Appeals of Indiana,
First District.
Aug. 6, 1990.

Page 1069

Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Jonathan Parkhurst, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for defendant-appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Mary Dreyer, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.

BAKER, Judge.

Defendant-appellant Marvin Reffett appeals the denial of his Motion to Correct Erroneous Sentence. 1 The case calls upon us to rule on the proper role of presentence reports in negotiated plea agreements in felony cases, and the specific issue before us is whether a trial court can accept a plea agreement without first having reviewed the defendant's presentence report. We hold that it cannot, and therefore affirm.

FACTS

Reffett was charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated, second or subsequent offense, a Class D felony. 2 On August 9, 1988, Reffett's negotiated plea agreement was filed with the trial court. The agreement provided that Reffett would receive an executed sentence of 23 months to run concurrently with a sentence to be imposed on a separate charge in another county. Pursuant to an order of judgment, the court accepted the agreement on August 11, 1988.

Reffett's presentence report was filed on August 12, 1988. On August 15, 1988, the trial court rescinded its August 11 order, thereby rejecting the plea agreement, and set the matter for trial. On December 23, 1988, the court accepted a second plea agreement which required Reffett to serve a two year executed sentence to run consecutively to the sentence in the other county.

The trial court denied Reffett's Motion to Correct Erroneous Sentence, and this appeal followed.

PROCEDURE

Initially, we note that Reffett should have filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in this instance, rather than a Motion to Correct Erroneous Sentence, because the procedures for such a motion under IND. CODE 35-38-1-15 should be employed when a sentence is erroneous on its face. Jones v. State (1989), Ind., 544 N.E.2d 492. Reffett's two year sentence for Class D felony operating while intoxicated is not erroneous on its face. Nonetheless, because our supreme court in Jones, supra, ruled on the merits of a case brought as a Motion to Correct Erroneous Sentence, we do likewise and decline the State's request to dismiss the appeal.

DECISION

I. Felony Plea Agreements

We begin from the proposition that no defendant has an absolute right to a plea agreement. Whether to accept or reject a plea agreement is a matter for the trial court's discretion. See Phillips v. State (1982), Ind., 441 N.E.2d 201; Griffith v. State (1975), 163 Ind.App. 11, 321 N.E.2d 576. Nonetheless, "[p]roperly administered, [plea agreements are] to be encouraged. If every criminal charge were subjected to a full-scale trial, the States ... would need to multiply by many times the number of judges and court facilities." Santobello v. New York (1971), 404 U.S. 257, 260, 92 S.Ct. 495, 498, 30 L.Ed.2d 427, 432. To encourage plea agreements in our heavily docketed trial courts, Indiana has enacted a broad statutory framework detailing the methods by which plea agreements are to be reached. See IND. CODE 35-35-3. This framework provides assurances that the needs and rights of victims,

Page 1070

defendants, and society at large are considered before plea agreements are reduced to judgment.

For example, IND. CODE 35-35-3-5 requires that prosecutors give victims the opportunity to review proposed plea agreements and to present their opinion of the agreement to the court. To prevent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Henley v. State, No. 82S05-0701-PC-31.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 27 Febrero 2008
    ...trial court abused its discretion in summarily denying Dowell's request for stand-by counsel to conduct the closing argument." Dowell, 557 N.E.2d at 1068 (emphasis added). Two, and more importantly, the portion of the opinion discussing this issue was, in the words of the court itself, "not......
  • Parker v. State, No. 48A02-8901-CR-10
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 18 Febrero 1991
    ...ask for relief. It does not lie with a party who invites error to complain of that error on appeal. Reffett v. State (1990), Ind.App., 557 N.E.2d 1068. VII Parker contends the trial court subjected him to grave peril by giving an incorrect example of the crime of conspiracy using an analogy......
  • Henley v. State, No. 82A05-0508-PC-480.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 30 Octubre 2006
    ...court make some inquiry. The failure to make such an inquiry is an abuse of discretion. Stamper, 809 N.E.2d at 355; see also Dowell, 557 N.E.2d at 1068. In other words, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by erroneously denying Henley's request for standby counsel to make closing a......
  • Taylor v. State, No. 03A01-0203-PC-99.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 30 Diciembre 2002
    ...The trial court denied the motion, this court affirmed the trial court, and our Supreme Court granted transfer. See Reffett v. State, 557 N.E.2d 1068 (Ind.Ct.App.1990), trans. Upon transfer, the State argued that Reffett's appeal from the denial of his motion to correct an erroneous sentenc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Henley v. State, No. 82S05-0701-PC-31.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 27 Febrero 2008
    ...trial court abused its discretion in summarily denying Dowell's request for stand-by counsel to conduct the closing argument." Dowell, 557 N.E.2d at 1068 (emphasis added). Two, and more importantly, the portion of the opinion discussing this issue was, in the words of the court itself, "not......
  • Parker v. State, No. 48A02-8901-CR-10
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 18 Febrero 1991
    ...ask for relief. It does not lie with a party who invites error to complain of that error on appeal. Reffett v. State (1990), Ind.App., 557 N.E.2d 1068. VII Parker contends the trial court subjected him to grave peril by giving an incorrect example of the crime of conspiracy using an analogy......
  • Henley v. State, No. 82A05-0508-PC-480.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 30 Octubre 2006
    ...court make some inquiry. The failure to make such an inquiry is an abuse of discretion. Stamper, 809 N.E.2d at 355; see also Dowell, 557 N.E.2d at 1068. In other words, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by erroneously denying Henley's request for standby counsel to make closing a......
  • Taylor v. State, No. 03A01-0203-PC-99.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 30 Diciembre 2002
    ...The trial court denied the motion, this court affirmed the trial court, and our Supreme Court granted transfer. See Reffett v. State, 557 N.E.2d 1068 (Ind.Ct.App.1990), trans. Upon transfer, the State argued that Reffett's appeal from the denial of his motion to correct an erroneous sentenc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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