State v. Eiland
| Decision Date | 15 February 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 02S05-0002-PC-107.,02S05-0002-PC-107. |
| Citation | 723 N.E.2d 863 |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana, Appellant (Respondent below), v. Janet EILAND, Appellee (Petitioner below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Jeffrey A. Modisett, Attorney General of Indiana, James A. Garrard, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for appellant.
Thomas C. Allen, Fort Wayne, Indiana, Attorney for Appellee.
ON PETITION TO TRANSFER
Janet Eiland filed the petition for post-conviction relief from her conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The post-conviction court granted the petition on two grounds: (1) that the trial court had not inquired into the factual basis before accepting Eiland's guilty plea to the charge; and (2) the trial court had failed to inform Eiland that she was waiving her constitutional rights by pleading guilty.
The Court of Appeals reversed the post-conviction court and remanded the case with instructions. State v. Eiland, 707 N.E.2d 314 (Ind.Ct.App.1999),reh' g denied. In analyzing the first of the two grounds on which the post-conviction court granted relief, the Court of Appeals addressed the question of whether a petitioner for post-conviction relief who proves that a factual basis for his or her guilty plea was not established must also prove that he or she was prejudiced by this error. We agree with the Court of Appeals that prejudice must be established before post-conviction relief can be granted on grounds of failure to establish a factual basis for a guilty plea. See Herman v. State, 526 N.E.2d 1183, 1185 (Ind. 1988) ( ).
As the Court of Appeals pointed out, this conclusion is consistent with our opinion in White v. State, 497 N.E.2d 893 (Ind. 1986). There we held that to be entitled to post-conviction relief from a guilty plea, a petitioner must show prejudice resulting from a trial court's failure to comply with a statute that requires defendants to be advised of certain rights before pleading guilty.1 We noted that the statutory advisements were not required by constitutional law and that justice would not be served if convictions were reversed on the basis that the statutory advisements had not been given where there was no evidence that the advisements would have affected a defendant's decision to plead guilty:
White, 497 N.E.2d at 905 (citation omitted).
We have the same view with respect to the requirement that a factual basis be established before a guilty plea is accepted. This is not a requirement of constitutional law and the same costs to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fisher v. State
...Dewitt v. State, 755 N.E.2d 167, 171 (Ind.2001) (quoting State v. Eiland, 707 N.E.2d 314, 318 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), opinion adopted, 723 N.E.2d 863 (Ind.2000)). We will vacate a conviction only "if the defendant did not know or was not advised at the time of his plea that he was waiving his Bo......
-
Carter v. State
...basis was not established unless he demonstrates prejudice in that his decision to plead guilty would have been different. State v. Eiland (2000) Ind., 723 N.E.2d 863. This would appear to dilute the above quoted language from State v. Van Cleave, supra, which seems to hold, without regard ......
-
Segura v. State
... ... Further, State v. Eiland (1999) Ind.App., 707 N.E.2d 314, which was adopted upon transfer by our Supreme Court, (2000) Ind., 723 N.E.2d 863, adds to the seeming inconsistency. In Eiland, a panel of this court held that a petitioner who proves a factual basis for a guilty plea was lacking must also show that he or she was ... ...
-
Dewitt v. State
...the accused. State v. Eiland, 707 N.E.2d 314, 318 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (quotation omitted), reh'g denied, opinion expressly adopted by 723 N.E.2d 863 (Ind.2000); Barron v. State, 164 Ind.App. 638, 330 N.E.2d 141, 144 (1975). Rather, Boykin only requires a conviction to be vacated if the defend......