Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 16 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 874S154,874S154 |
| Citation | 263 Ind. 165,46 Ind.Dec. 455,325 N.E.2d 827 |
| Parties | Steven Wayne WILLIAMS and Albert L. Williams, Appellants (Defendants Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Harriette Bailey Conn, Public Defender, Bruce H. Klang, Deputy Public Defender, for appellants.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Walter F. Lockhart, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Petitioners appeal from the denial of their petition for post-conviction relief, seeking withdrawal of their pleas of guilty to first degree murder.
On January 19, 1973, petitiones were preliminarily charged with first degree murder and had counsel appointed at that time. Thereafter, petitioners, with counsel, were present when the Grand Jury of Elkhart County returned formal indictments. On January 26, 1973, petitioners waived arraignment on the formal charge and entered pleas of guilty to first degree murder. During this proceeding, the court addressed petitioners only once, asking them their ages. The court made the following entry:
The statements referred to by the trial court in its entry were forms prepared by the prosecutor. These forms were read to and completed for petitioners by defense counsel. Each form bore the following general information: defendant's name, the place and date of his birth, years of formal education and a statement that defendant could read, write, and understand the English language. The form advised each petitioner that he was charged with first degree murder and that the penalty upon conviction was life imprisonment. The form further stated:
'5. I understand that I am entitled to have my rights explained to me and that I have the right to have any questions I may have answered for me.
'6. I understand that I have the following rights: (a) the right to a speedy and public trial; (b) the right to a jury trial; (c) the right to be released on reasonable bail until trial; (d) the right to use the power of the court to compel production of any evidence including the attendance of witnesses in my favor; (e) the right to see and hear all the witnesses against me and to question them at trial; (f) the right to the assistance of a lawyer at every stage of the proceeding against me, and (g) the right to appeal any conviction in this court to a higher court. I understand that I have the right to remain silent and that the burden is on the state to prove me guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
'7. I understand that I have a right to be defended in this case by a lawyer. I have the right to employ the lawyer of my choice to defend me. I also understand that if I cannot afford to employ a lawyer, the court will provide a lawyer for me in this case. I further understand that I have a right to have a lawyer provided by the court even if I am guilty of the offense charged.
'8. I declare that no person, including the court, the prosecuting attorney and the police officers and sheriff's deputies with whom I have talked, has made any promise or suggestion of any kind to me, or within my knowledge to anyone else, that I would receive any favors, special treatment or any other form of leniency if I would decide not to have a lawyer defend me in this case.
Each form continued with the following statement written by defense counsel:
Immediately following this statement on each form, there appears the signature of the petitioner named therein.
Prior to accepting petitioners' guilty pleas, the court heard the following evidence:
MR. PETERSON (Deputy Prosecuting Attorney): 'Criminal Cause, Young Honor, No. 6916.'
MR. HARTZOG: 'Your Honor, we are here today on an arraignment. Again, I have gone over it with Albert and Steven and have presented them with a written form, that Don often uses, on their rights. In the case of Steven Wayne Williams, he was born on January 17, 1950 at New Madrid, Missouri; he had a tenth grade education, and in addition, he did some studying in the Army, and he had no report on that. He is aware that he is charged with first degree murder, and he understands that the penalty which may be imposed is life imprisonment; he understands and has signed this statement, that the Court has appointed me to represent him; that I have had sufficient time to go over the charge with him; that he understands all of his rights and states to me that he is guilty as charged, and that he gave a full confession, and that the same is true in substance and in fact, and has requested me, as his attorney, to answer a plea of guilty, and that sentence be pronounced as soon as possible, and that he is satisfied with me as his attorney in representing him here today.
'And the same, Your Honor, is true with Albert Lewis Williams, with the exception that Albert Lewis Williams was born 7--20--44, also born in New Madrid, Missouri, and he is a high school graduate. He also understands that it is murder-one. He understands that it is life imprisonment. And he also signed the same statement and also makes a request that we waive arraignment and enter a plea of guilty. I realize the Court must refer this to probation for an investigation and report back to the Court. And he also requests that this be done as soon as possible.
'I have explained to them, Your Honor, that at the time of sentencing, it will be necessary that they do take the stand. They prefer not to, Your Honor. I told them that the Court would be very fair in his questions to them, and I am quite sure would hold it to the minimum, but it was necessary that they did understand all of their rights and that they be given every break that the law can give them under the circumstances.
'Now, is that true, Albert and Steve, that this is what we went over?'
'Is that correct?'
A. 'Yes, sir.'
Q. 'And you understood that form thoroughly, through your attorney, Mr. Hartzog?'
A. 'Yes, sir.'
Q. 'And you are waiving arraignment, by yourself, and entering a plea of guilty to first degree murder?'
A. 'Yes, sir.'
Q. 'And do you understand what that charge was, fully?'
A. 'Yes.'
Q. 'And the sentence provided?'
A. 'Yes, sir.'
MR. PETERSON: 'I believe I will put that one in evidence, your Honor.'
Q. 'Steven Williams, is this your signature here?'
A. 'Yes.'
Q.
A. 'Yes.'
Q.
A. 'Yes.'
Q. 'You understand from this leaflet and what Mr. Hartzog told you all of your legal rights and constitutional rights?'
A. 'Yes, sir.'
Q. 'You understood that?'
A. 'Yes, sir.'
Q. 'Knowing that, you are entering a plea of guilty?'
A. 'Yes.'
Q. 'Of your own free will?'
A. 'Yes.'
THE COURT: 'And you are how old, Steven Wayne Williams?'
A. '23.'
On February 8, the trial court heard testimony establishing the corpus delicti, received petitioners' extra-judicial confessions entered judgment and sentenced petitioners to life imprisonment.
The single issue presented by this appeal is whether petitioners' guilty pleas were entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily when the record of the guilty pleas proceeding demonstrates that petitioners were advised of their rights under Boykin v. Alabama (1969), 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, by defense counsel but not by the trial court.
The entry of a plea of guilty in state court proceedings entails a waiver of three important federal constitutional rights. As stated in Boykin, the first of these rights:
395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, 279.
The waiver of these federal rights may not be presumed 'from a silent record.' 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ballard
...35, 484 P.2d 1367; State v. Bugbee (1971), 161 Conn. 531, 290 A.2d 332; Williams v. State (Fla.1975), 316 So.2d 267; Williams v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 165, 325 N.E.2d 827; Brainard v. State (Iowa 1974), 222 N.W.2d 711; People v. Jaworski (1972), 387 Mich. 21, 194 N.W.2d 868; State v. Holde......
-
People v. Ayala
...35 484 P.2d 1367; State v. Bugbee (1971), 161 Conn. 531, 290 A.2d 332; Williams v. State (Fla.1975) 316 So.2d 267; Williams v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 165, 325 N.E.2d 827; Brainard v. State (Iowa 1974), 222 N.W.2d 711; People v. Jaworski (1972), 387 Mich. 21, 194 N.W.2d 868; State v. Holden ......
-
Barfell v. State
...See, e. g., Neeley v. State (1978), Ind., 382 N.E.2d 714 (Prentice and DeBruler, JJ., dissenting); Williams v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 165, 325 N.E.2d 827 (DeBruler, J., dissenting). In Williams v. State, supra, the record of the guilty plea hearing did not reveal any indication that the tri......
-
State v. Dossett
...rights as enumerated in Boykin be revealed in the record. Bonner v. State (1973), 156 Ind.App. 513, 297 N.E.2d 867; see: Williams v. State (1975), Ind., 325 N.E.2d 827; Anderson v. State (1975), Ind., 335 N.E.2d 225. Dossett was sentenced on his guilty plea on March 11, 1971. Case law prior......