Webster v. State, No. 578S98
| Docket Nº | No. 578S98 |
| Citation | 270 Ind. 145, 383 N.E.2d 328 |
| Case Date | December 21, 1978 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 328
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
[270 Ind. 146]
Page 329
Harriette Bailey Conn, Public Defender of Indiana, Marcia L. Dumond, David P. Freund, Deputy Public Defenders, Indianapolis, for appellant.Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Alembert W. Brayton, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
GIVAN, Chief Justice.
Appellant was tried before a jury on charges of armed robbery, robbery, and theft. He was convicted of all three counts and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 20 years for armed robbery, 10 to 20 years for robbery, and one to ten years for theft.
The evidence shows that on the night of August 31, 1977, Wayne Willison was in his home near Brazil, Indiana, watching television. Suddenly two men entered his house, one carrying a gun. The man with the gun demanded Willison's wallet, while the other left to rummage the house. Willison was taken to his bedroom and to the basement to [270 Ind. 147] find his wallet, but was not injured by the intruders. When they left, he discovered numerous items missing, among them a total of $850, a television, a pistol, a box of shells, a drawer from a chest, his son's class ring, another ring and bracelet, and several necklaces.
On September 12, 1977, appellant was brought before the court for arraignment. The charges were read to him, and he was advised of his constitutional rights. Appellant informed the court that he wished to employ his own attorney. The court thereupon continued the cause until September 19 and told appellant it was his duty to have his attorney present and arrange to have a plea entered. On September 19, 1977, appellant came to court without his attorney. Upon questioning by the court, he said that he wanted to plead not guilty but that he wanted to wait until his attorney was present. The court at that point entered, pursuant to IC § 35-4.1-1-1 (Burns 1975), a plea of not guilty for the appellant. On October 18, 1977, appellant filed a motion to set aside the plea. He now contends the overruling of this motion was reversible error.
Under IC § 35-4.1-1-1, the trial court is compelled to enter a plea of not guilty if the defendant stands mute or refuses to plead. The trial court herein properly entered the plea. The court may, in its discretion, allow the defendant to withdraw his plea of not guilty for good cause shown. IC § 35-4.1-1-6(a) (Burns Supp.1978). Appellant argues there was good cause here since he was entitled to a dismissal of the charge on the ground that the prosecutor had not signed the information. However, the record shows that the prosecutor in fact signed the information. Appellant then argues he had a right to have his attorney present
Page 330
when he entered the plea. The argument has no merit. The trial court entered the plea pursuant to the legal authority of a statute. See also Dickens v. State (1973) 260 Ind. 284, 295 N.E.2d 613. Furthermore, it might also be noted that the motion to set aside fails to state facts showing in what respect appellant's substantial rights would have been prejudiced if the motion were denied. IC § 35-4.1-1-6(a). Appellant's motion merely states the conclusion that his substantial rights would be prejudiced. Under such circumstances, the trial court committed no error in overruling the motion to set aside the plea.Appellant next argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion for change of venue since...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowan v. State, No. 380S76
...verdict may be based solely upon circumstantial evidence. Harris v. State, (1981) Ind., 425 N.E.2d 112; Webster v. State, (1978) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 328. We have also clearly held that in a case based wholly upon circumstantial evidence, this Court does not have to find that the circumstantial......
-
Tinnin v. State, No. 480S117
...is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement of facts as to the credibility of the informant. Webster v. State, (1978) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 328; Hoskins v. State, (1977) Ind.App., 367 N.E.2d 1388. Defendant's contention is, therefore, without Defendant also maintains that the information ......
-
Smith v. State, No. 382S88
...evidence. Thompson v. State, (1982) Ind., 441 N.E.2d 192; Harris v. State, (1981) Ind., 425 Page 350 N.E.2d 112; Webster v. State, (1978) 270 Ind. 145, 383 N.E.2d In this case, defendant argues that the only witnesses who claimed to have direct knowledge of the alleged conspiracy were her d......
-
Willard v. State, No. 379S74
...wholly upon the law and evidence adduced at the trial. See Williams v. State (1979), Ind., 386 N.E.2d 670; Webster v. State (1978), Ind., 383 N.E.2d 328; Daniels v. State (1976), 264 Ind. 490, 346 N.E.2d 566; Swininger v. State (1976), 265 Ind. 136, 352 N.E.2d The transcript in this case sh......
-
Rowan v. State, No. 380S76
...verdict may be based solely upon circumstantial evidence. Harris v. State, (1981) Ind., 425 N.E.2d 112; Webster v. State, (1978) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 328. We have also clearly held that in a case based wholly upon circumstantial evidence, this Court does not have to find that the circumstantial......
-
Tinnin v. State, No. 480S117
...is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement of facts as to the credibility of the informant. Webster v. State, (1978) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 328; Hoskins v. State, (1977) Ind.App., 367 N.E.2d 1388. Defendant's contention is, therefore, without Defendant also maintains that the information ......
-
Smith v. State, No. 382S88
...evidence. Thompson v. State, (1982) Ind., 441 N.E.2d 192; Harris v. State, (1981) Ind., 425 Page 350 N.E.2d 112; Webster v. State, (1978) 270 Ind. 145, 383 N.E.2d In this case, defendant argues that the only witnesses who claimed to have direct knowledge of the alleged conspiracy were her d......
-
Willard v. State, No. 379S74
...wholly upon the law and evidence adduced at the trial. See Williams v. State (1979), Ind., 386 N.E.2d 670; Webster v. State (1978), Ind., 383 N.E.2d 328; Daniels v. State (1976), 264 Ind. 490, 346 N.E.2d 566; Swininger v. State (1976), 265 Ind. 136, 352 N.E.2d The transcript in this case sh......