Saylor v. State, 3--375A50

• Citation: 335 N.E.2d 826,166 Ind.App. 349
• Decision Date: 29 October 1975
• Docket Number: No. 3--375A50,3--375A50
• Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana
• Parties: Darrell G. SAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee.

Page 826

335 N.E.2d 826

166 Ind.App. 349

Darrell G. SAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee.

No. 3--375A50.

Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District.

Oct. 29, 1975.

Harriette Bailey Conn, Public Defender, William B. Bryan, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for defendant-appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert M. Lingenfelter, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before STATON, P.J., and GARRARD and HOFFMAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

Darrell Saylor, defendant, appeals from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief contending his guilty plea should be set aside due to the trial court's failure to comply with Indiana Rules of Procedure, Criminal Rule 10 and to fully advise defendant of his constitutional rights before accepting his plea.

We affirm.

Saylor argues his arraignment record does not comply with CR. 10 and is therefore fatally defective. The record is a pre-printed questionnaire with defendant's responses hand-written in beneath each interrogatory. Using a pre-printed questionnaire to record an arraignment proceeding, while not the preferred practice, nevertheless does not constitute reversible error. Holmes v. State (1975), Ind.App., 332 N.E.2d 245; Janigon v. State (1975), Ind.App., 330 N.E.2d 389; Barron v. State (1975), Ind.App., 330 N.E.2d 141.

Saylor further contends he was improperly advised of his constitutional rights to confront witnesses and resist self-incrimination. Defendant admits these rights were read to him but claims they were imprecisely phrased. Instructions identical to those questioned here were found adequate by this Court in Barron v. State, supra and Holmes v. State, supra. A defendant need not be advised of his rights in the exact language of the constitution. Melendez v. State (1974), Ind.App., 312 N.E.2d 508; Tibbs v. State (1973), Ind.App., 303 N.E.2d 294. The record demonstrates defendant voluntarily pled guilty after being properly informed of his rights.

We affirm.