Summers v. State, 372A129
| Decision Date | 16 August 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 372A129,372A129 |
| Citation | 285 N.E.2d 830,153 Ind.App. 107 |
| Parties | James A. SUMMERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
William C. Erbecker, Indianapolis, Woodrow S. Nasser, Terre, Haute, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Colker, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant-defendant (Summers) was charged by affidavit with 'Attempt to Commit a Crime While Armed With a Deadly Weapon'. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to the Indiana Reformatory for a term of one to fifteen years.
After judgment was entered, defendant filed a Motion to Correct Errors alleging that he was incompetent at the time he entered his plea and moving the court to vacate the judgment and allow him to withdraw his plea. From the denial of the Motion to Correct Errors, Summers appeals.
Before consideration of the issues, a recitation of certain facts is necessary.
On April 22, 1971 at 4:16 A.M., officers of the Terre Haute Police Department caught Summers, age 29, attempting to pry open the front door of a tavern. Defendant fled but was captured a short distance away. When apprehended he dropped a tire tool and a loaded .22 caliber revolver from his hand.
After a probable cause hearing an affidavit was filed, bond fixed and arraignment continued until May 7. On this date, Summers' attorney, R. Jerome Kearns, appeared and was granted a continuance because defendant was confined to Union Hospital.
Three more continuances were granted the defendant and on July 19, 1971 Summers appeared in person and by counsel, waived formal arraignment and pleaded guilty. During the arraignment Summers was questioned by the Court concerning his understanding of his Constitutional rights, including his right to trial by jury and his understanding of the penalty. He was also questioned as to whether his guilty plea was the result of any threats and whether it was voluntary. After Summers routinely answered these questions, the plea of guilty was accepted, a pre-sentence investigation was ordered and sentencing was set for August 11, 1971.
A Pre-Sentence Investigation Report was filed by the Probation Officer on August 3, 1971, stating that Summers had a history of instability, listing several prior convictions and noting a successful adjustment period during parole.
The report further indicated that Summers and his wife had no financial problems, having a combined income of over $200.00 per week when he was fully employed and that they had saved approximately $3,000.00 in the expectation of buying a home. It also revealed that Summers had been subject to occasional crying spells when he was alone and that he was on a leave of absence from his employment. Summers stated that his reason for attempting to break in the tavern, was to talk with the bartender after closing hours as he had done in the past. At the time of his arrest he had $144.00 in cash with him. He stated he had been drinking beer all that day and night, in addition to taking medicine which had been prescribed by his psychiatrist, Dr. Gene Moore.
In a letter included in the report, Dr. Moore describes Summers as 'suffering a psychoneurotic reaction, anxiety and depression.' In this and other letters Dr. Moore had advised defendant's counsel that Summers had been under his care since March 18, 1971, had been hospitalized and had received eight electro shock treatments between May 3 and May 17, 1971. The doctor concluded saying that a term in prison 'will literally destroy this man' and stated that he was prepared to lay his professional reputation on the line in recommending a parole. While plaintiff's counsel was aware of the above, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the court had any knowledge of defendant's mental condition until the pre-sentence investigation was filed.
After another continuance Summers was sentenced to the Indiana Reformatory on August 16, 1971. On October 15, 1971 attorney Woodrow S. Nasser entered his appearance for the defendant and filed the Motion to Correct Errors. Accompanying the Motion was a Statement of Facts, an Affidavit by Nasser and copies of three letters from Dr. Moore, two to Kearns and one to Nasser. Dr. Moore stated in those letters that he had been treating Summers with shock treatments and drugs, that he believed that due to anxiety, Summers was incompetent to the extent that it was impossible for him to realize what he was pleading guilty to and that Summers was incompetent in the legal sense at the time of the crime.
The Motion to Correct Errors was denied and defendant was released on bond, pending the appeal.
We have detailed to above facts because, while the law is clear, the facts of each case differ and must be understood before the law can be correctly applied.
Thacker v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 665, 262 N.E.2d 189, repeats the general rules governing a motion to vacate a judgment and withdrawal of a guilty plea. Such motions are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and where a trial court has overruled such a motion, this court on appeal, will indulge a presumption in favor of the trial court's ruling. (Citing cases.)
In Allman v. State (1968), 253 Ind. 14, 235 N.E.2d 56, Justice Hunter discusses the term 'sound judicial discretion', stating that:
'The term 'sound judicial discretion' always brings into question on appeal whether discretion was 'wisely or unwisely' exercised, or 'unreasonable exercised', or constituted 'prejudicial abuse' of discretion; or, as stated by the Supreme Court of the United States, whether its exercise was 'clearly erroneous'. It would appear that the descriptions, as above recited, when used by the various courts, very aptly and accurately express the exact judicial meaning of the term 'abuse of discretion.' Generally speaking there are two conditions which must be shown to exist to justify a court of appellate jurisdiction in setting aside a ruling made by a trial court in the exercise of judicial discretion:
(1) that the action complained of must have been unreasonable in the light of all attendant circumstances or it must have been clearly untenable or unreasonable;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parsons v. State
...if the defendant's competence has been substantially questioned that the trial court must make such further inquiry. Summers v. State (1972), Ind.App., 285 N.E.2d 830, 833. Parsons has failed to show that his alcholism made him unaware of the wrongfulness of his conduct or compelled him to ......
-
Fuller v. State
...reasonable ground to believe that the defendant was incompetent to stand trial. Defendant's reliance on language in Summers v. State, (1972) 153 Ind.App. 107, 285 N.E.2d 830 is misplaced. That decision states that the trial court has a duty to make further inquiry after a defendant's compet......
- Jacobs v. State, 272A106
-
Heartfield v. State
...was a crucial step in the proceedings and could not take place pending a determination of his competence, citing Summers v. State, (1972) 153 Ind.App. 107, 285 N.E.2d 830. In that case, our Court of Appeals did vacate the judgment and remand the case with instructions to determine whether S......