Williams v. State, 2-1184A360

Docket NºNo. 2-1184A360
Citation477 N.E.2d 906
Case DateMay 08, 1985
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 906

477 N.E.2d 906
Anthony WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant,
STATE of Indiana, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 2-1184A360 1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana,
First District.
May 8, 1985.

Page 907

Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Sheila K. Zwickey, Sp. Asst., Indianapolis, for petitioner-appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Richard Albert Alford, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for respondent-appellee.

NEAL, Judge.


Petitioner-appellant, Anthony Williams (Williams), appeals the denial for relief under his petition for post-conviction relief under PC Rule 1.

We affirm.


On July 3, 1968, Williams, age 16, was charged with robbery after a waiver from juvenile court. On July 10, after attorney William Laswell entered an appearance for him, Williams entered a plea of not guilty. Then on July 18, 1968, attorney Chester Wilson, employed by Williams' parents, entered an appearance for him, and on August 1, 1968, Williams, with attorney Wilson and his parents present, entered a plea of guilty to robbery. The record of the proceedings before the Honorable Saul I. Rabb reflected that Williams was satisfied with his attorney; was advised of the penalty of 10 to 25 years but only 1 to 10 years under the Minor's Act; understood his right to a jury trial; acknowledged the voluntariness of the plea; and acknowledged that no reason existed why sentence should not be pronounced. The court also conducted an extensive factual determination from witnesses. The record also reflects that during juvenile proceedings held on July 1, 1968, attended by Williams, his parents and counsel, the court advised him that he had a right to counsel, the right to remain silent, the right to cross-examine, the right to present evidence, and the right to have the assistance of the court in procuring the attendance of witnesses.

At the conclusion of the July 1 juvenile hearing, the court issued a waiver order in which he found that Williams was 16 years old and was charged with an offense which, if committed by an adult, would be robbery. The trial judge found that the case had specific prosecutorial merit; if Williams were retained in juvenile court, no disposition was available that was reasonably calculated to effect rehabilitation in that the offense is heinous and part of a repetitive pattern of juvenile conduct consisting of second degree burglary, ungovernability, offenses against properties, malicious trespass, curfew, and robbery over a period of 4 years for which he was

Page 908

placed on probation 4 times, and finally sent to the Boys School. The order concluded that the best interest of the public welfare and the protection of the public security required that Williams be tried as an adult offender.

Williams filed his PC 1 petition on May 3, 1985, sixteen years after the proceedings and long after the sentence had expired. Though it is not stated, the current proceeding is an apparent attempt to erode the underlying felonies supporting a habitual offender conviction. Williams correctly alleges in his petition that the trial court failed to advise him of the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to confront accusers. At the conclusion of the hearing on the PC 1, where the only evidence presented was the transcript of the guilty plea hearing and the waiver order, the trial court made the following order:

"The court finds that the law is with the state and against the defendant and denies the petition. The defendant is remanded back to the institution as quickly as possible."


Williams presents the following issues on appeal:

I. Insufficiency of the findings of facts and conclusions of law as required by PCR 1, Sec. 6.

II. Whether Williams was properly advised of his privileges against compulsory self-incrimination and his right to confront his accusers at his guilty plea hearing on August 1, 1968.

III. Whether Williams had been properly waived from juvenile court, thereby fairly conferring jurisdiction on the Marion Superior Court.


Issue I. Findings and Conclusions.

Specific findings of facts and conclusions of law are mandated by PCR 1, Sec. 6. Lowe v. State, (1983) Ind. 455 N.E.2d 1126; Davis v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 327, 330 N.E.2d 738; Cabell v. State, (1980) 274 Ind. 683, 414 N.E.2d 293. Nevertheless, we are not foreclosed from determining the ultimate issues where the underlying facts are not in dispute and the parties have addressed the issues. In the interest of judicial economy, we may make a determination of the issues where they are clear. Lowe v. State, supra; Sims v. State, (1981) Ind.App., 422 N.E.2d 436. Here the issues are clear; that is, the effect of a pre-Boykin plea where advisements are insufficient and whether the order of waiver is sufficient on its face. We shall proceed to rule on both those issues.

Issue II: Compliance with Pre-Boykin Procedure.

In Boykin v. Alabama, (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 the Supreme Court of the United States held that the record must affirmatively show advice of the right of privilege against compulsory self-incrimination and the right to confront one's accusers and a knowing and intelligent waiver thereof.

Indiana decisions, while not definitive of the ultimate parameters of the effect of that case on pre-Boykin pleas, have held that Boykin is not to be applied retroactively.

In Conley v. State, (1972) 259 Ind....

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Woods v. State, s. 45A03-8606-PC-174
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 13 Abril 1987
    ...(1969), 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, and Boykin will not be applied retroactively. Williams v. State (1985), Ind.App., 477 N.E.2d 906, Page 490 In a pre-Boykin case, the trial judge was not required to personally advise a defendant of his rights. In the absence of a claim of......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT