Snyder v. State, No. 284S59
| Docket Nº | No. 284S59 |
| Citation | 500 N.E.2d 154 |
| Case Date | November 19, 1986 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 154
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
Page 155
Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, William L. Touchette, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Page 156
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Lisa M. Paunicka, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
GIVAN, Chief Justice.
Appellant entered a plea of guilty to two (2) counts of Robbery and one (1) count of Attempted Robbery, all Class B felonies. He was sentenced to concurrent fifteen (15) year terms of imprisonment.
On September 30, 1980, appellant was charged with Robbery. Two days later he was charged with Robbery and Attempted Robbery. On October 6, appellant filed a Motion to Have Psychiatric Examination and Evaluation, which was granted the following day. The court appointed two psychiatrists, who examined appellant and submitted reports in which both concluded he was competent to stand trial.
On March 17, 1981, appellant filed a plea bargain agreement in which he agreed to enter a plea of guilty to the three charges and the State recommended concurrent ten (10) year sentences. A guilty plea hearing was conducted on that date. On April 20, the trial judge, the Honorable Hugh D. McQuillan, rejected the plea agreement. A second plea agreement was then filed on June 23. The judge accepted that plea and sentenced appellant in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
Appellant filed a pro se post-conviction petition on January 10, 1983, alleging that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and that his sentence was unreasonable. The court summarily denied the petition on July 5. On September 2, appellant filed a motion to correct error and also filed a motion to reconsider asking the court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issues set forth in his petition. Oral argument was heard on the motions and the court granted the motion to reconsider and permitted appellant to amend his post-conviction petition. The subsequently filed amended petition was also summarily denied.
Appellant claims the trial court erred in accepting his guilty plea because the court failed to make a proper determination of his competency to stand trial. He argues that based on facts known by the court, it was compelled under the applicable statute to conduct a hearing to determine whether he was competent.
The statute provided:
"If at any time before the final submission of any criminal case to the court or jury trying the same, the court, either from its own knowledge or upon the suggestion of any person, has reasonable grounds for believing that the defendant lacks the ability to understand the proceedings and assist in the preparation of his defense, the court shall immediately fix a time for a hearing to determine whether the defendant has that ability. The court shall appoint two competent disinterested psychiatrists, who shall examine the defendant for the purpose of forming an opinion as to whether the defendant has that ability and shall testify concerning the same at the hearing." Ind.Code Sec. 35-5-3.1-1(a) (repealed and recodified at Ind.Code Sec. 35-36-3-1(a)).
A defendant's right to a competency hearing is not absolute. A hearing is required by the statute and by due process only when there is evidence creating a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's competency. Pate v. Robinson (1966), 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815; Goodman v. State (1983), Ind., 453 N.E.2d 984. The decision whether to hold a competency hearing is made within the discretion of the trial court, particularly where, as in the instant case, no petition for a hearing was filed. Hadley v. State (1986), Ind., 496 N.E.2d 67; Goodman, supra.
Two psychiatrists were appointed to examine appellant. Both concluded he was competent to stand trial. Appellant did not object to the psychiatrists' reports or attempt to schedule a hearing prior to filing his plea bargain agreement. See Hadley, supra. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not sua sponte ordering a competency hearing. Montague v. State (1977), 266 Ind. 51, 360 N.E.2d 181.
Page 157
Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting the first plea agreement.
On March 17, 1981, appellant submitted a plea bargain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butler v. State, No. 45S03-9502-PC-247
...is essential due to the varying degrees and kinds of inquiries required by different circumstances. See Snyder v. State (1986), Ind., 500 N.E.2d 154, Obviously, a court need not find evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to conclude that a factual basis exists. See, e.g., Broadie......
-
Benefiel v. State, No. 84S00-8906-CR-483
...the stipulations due to appellant's answers. The trial court did not err under the circumstances. See Snyder v. State (1986), Ind., 500 N.E.2d 154. Appellant contends the trial court erred by improperly restricting the definition Page 350 of insanity. He claims the trial court erred in reje......
-
Beech v. State, No. 49A05-9802-PC-90
...right to have a guilty plea accepted, and a trial court may reject a plea in the exercise of sound judicial discretion. Snyder v. State, 500 N.E.2d 154, 157 (Ind.1986). Given the nature and importance of the rights at stake, we find no meaningful distinction between cases in which the trial......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, No. 45A03-0408-CV-368.
...that attorney Blaize's opinion, a specific communication on the coverage issue, coincided with Bolden's opinion. See Whitehead, 500 N.E.2d at 154. Having thus opened the door on attorney Blaize's opinion, it was not error for the trial court to order State Farm to disclose that opinion cont......
-
Butler v. State, No. 45S03-9502-PC-247
...is essential due to the varying degrees and kinds of inquiries required by different circumstances. See Snyder v. State (1986), Ind., 500 N.E.2d 154, Obviously, a court need not find evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to conclude that a factual basis exists. See, e.g., Broadie......
-
Benefiel v. State, No. 84S00-8906-CR-483
...the stipulations due to appellant's answers. The trial court did not err under the circumstances. See Snyder v. State (1986), Ind., 500 N.E.2d 154. Appellant contends the trial court erred by improperly restricting the definition Page 350 of insanity. He claims the trial court erred in reje......
-
Beech v. State, No. 49A05-9802-PC-90
...right to have a guilty plea accepted, and a trial court may reject a plea in the exercise of sound judicial discretion. Snyder v. State, 500 N.E.2d 154, 157 (Ind.1986). Given the nature and importance of the rights at stake, we find no meaningful distinction between cases in which the trial......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, No. 45A03-0408-CV-368.
...that attorney Blaize's opinion, a specific communication on the coverage issue, coincided with Bolden's opinion. See Whitehead, 500 N.E.2d at 154. Having thus opened the door on attorney Blaize's opinion, it was not error for the trial court to order State Farm to disclose that opinion cont......