Romine v. State, No. 981S259

Docket NºNo. 981S259
Citation431 N.E.2d 780
Case DateMarch 02, 1982
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 780

431 N.E.2d 780
Bernard ROMINE, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
No. 981S259.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
March 2, 1982.

Page 781

Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Paul Levy, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Richard Albert Alford, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

HUNTER, Justice.

The petitioner, Bernard Romine, is before this Court appealing from the denial of his petition for Post-Conviction Relief, Rule 1. Therein, he sought relief from the judgment entered on his pleas of guilt to second-degree murder, Ind.Code § 35-13-4-1 (Burns 1975) and violence while armed with a firearm, Ind.Code § 35-23-4.1-2 (Burns 1975). In his appeal, he presents the following issues for our review:

1. Whether the trial court failed to advise petitioner of the statutory sentencing provisions which applied to his guilty pleas; and

2. Whether the trial court adequately advised petitioner of his constitutional right of confrontation prior to the entry of his pleas.

Both of petitioner's contentions are based on the requirements of Ind.Code § 35-4.1-1-3 (Burns 1975), which governs the entry and acceptance of a valid guilty plea. Consequently, we consolidate the issues for purposes of discussion.

At the post-conviction relief proceeding, petitioner had the burden of establishing his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind.R.P.C. 1, § 5; Turman v. State, (1979) Ind., 392 N.E.2d 483. In reviewing the denial of a petition for post-conviction relief, this Court may

Page 782

not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Only when the evidence is without conflict and leads to but one reasonable conclusion contrary to that reached by the trier of fact will the decision be reversed as contrary to law. Henson v. State, (1979) Ind., 392 N.E.2d 478; Hoskins v. State, (1973) 261 Ind. 291, 302 N.E.2d 499.

Petitioner maintains the trial court failed to fulfill its duties under Ind.Code § 35-4.1-1-3, supra, which reads in pertinent part:

"Plea of guilty-Defendant advised by court.-The court shall not accept a plea of guilty from the defendant without first addressing the defendant and

"(c) informing him that by his plea of guilty he waives his rights to a public and speedy trial by jury, to face the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and to require the state to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant may not be compelled to testify against himself;

"(d) informing him of the maximum possible sentence and minimum sentence for the offense charged and of any possible increased sentence by reason of the fact of a prior conviction or convictions, and of any possibility of the imposition of consecutive sentences...."

Strict compliance with the dictates of the statute is required of our trial courts, as the state concedes. German v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 234; Turman v. State, supra, Bullock v. State, (1981) Ind.App., 406 N.E.2d 1220; Barfell v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 399 N.E.2d 377; Collins v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 394 N.E.2d 211.

Petitioner first argues the trial court failed to properly advise him of the statutory sentencing provisions which would apply to him if his guilty pleas were accepted. His argument is predicated on two bases.

He points to the fact the trial court incorrectly advised him at the guilty plea hearing that the sentence for committing violence while armed with a firearm was required by statute to be served consecutively to his sentence for second-degree murder. In fact, Ind.Code § 35-23-4.1-18(d) (Burns 1975), which governed sentencing for the crime, permitted the trial court to impose the sentence on either a consecutive or concurrent basis.

Clearly the court erred in its interpretation of the statutory sentencing provision; just as clearly the court strictly complied with subsection "d" of Ind.Code § 35-4.1-1-3, supra, for the court twice stressed to defendant at the guilty plea hearing that if his pleas were accepted, the sentence for violence while armed with a deadly weapon would be imposed consecutively to the sentence for second-degree murder, as per the terms of the plea agreement petitioner had executed. In both instances petitioner...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • Davis v. State, No. 581S145
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 13, 1983
    ...constitutional rights is knowingly and intelligently given. Early v. State, (1982) Ind., 442 N.E.2d 1071; Romine v. State, (1982) Ind., 431 N.E.2d 780; German v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d Although the record shows that petitioner was aware of the one right which the trial court omitted......
  • White v. Indiana Parole Bd., No. 49A04-9806-CV-305.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 24, 1999
    ...Under the statute, those inmates serving determinate sentences were for the first time eligible for parole.6 Id.; Romine v. State, 431 N.E.2d 780, 783 (Ind.1982). Consequently, it became the more specific statute delineating parole eligibility by encompassing both those inmates serving dete......
  • Early v. State, No. 1181S316
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 22, 1982
    ...Court has repeatedly emphasized that strict compliance with the statute is demanded of our trial courts. Romine v. State, (1982) Ind., 431 N.E.2d 780, 782; German v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 234 (Givan, C.J., and Pivarnik, J., dissenting); Turman v. State, (1979) Ind., 392 N.E.2d 483.......
  • Sides v. State, No. 2-284-A-38
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 12, 1985
    ...those advanced by the State in its Petition for Rehearing. The State, in its Petition for Rehearing, cites Romine v. State (1982) Ind., 431 N.E.2d 780, for the proposition that an erroneous advisement as to the particular sentence applicable does not affect the character of the guilty plea.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • Davis v. State, No. 581S145
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 13, 1983
    ...constitutional rights is knowingly and intelligently given. Early v. State, (1982) Ind., 442 N.E.2d 1071; Romine v. State, (1982) Ind., 431 N.E.2d 780; German v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d Although the record shows that petitioner was aware of the one right which the trial court omitted......
  • White v. Indiana Parole Bd., No. 49A04-9806-CV-305.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 24, 1999
    ...Under the statute, those inmates serving determinate sentences were for the first time eligible for parole.6 Id.; Romine v. State, 431 N.E.2d 780, 783 (Ind.1982). Consequently, it became the more specific statute delineating parole eligibility by encompassing both those inmates serving dete......
  • Early v. State, No. 1181S316
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 22, 1982
    ...Court has repeatedly emphasized that strict compliance with the statute is demanded of our trial courts. Romine v. State, (1982) Ind., 431 N.E.2d 780, 782; German v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 234 (Givan, C.J., and Pivarnik, J., dissenting); Turman v. State, (1979) Ind., 392 N.E.2d 483.......
  • Sides v. State, No. 2-284-A-38
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 12, 1985
    ...those advanced by the State in its Petition for Rehearing. The State, in its Petition for Rehearing, cites Romine v. State (1982) Ind., 431 N.E.2d 780, for the proposition that an erroneous advisement as to the particular sentence applicable does not affect the character of the guilty plea.......
  • 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