Wright v. State
| Decision Date | 31 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 87A01-8605-PC-120,87A01-8605-PC-120 |
| Parties | Jack C. WRIGHT, Appellant (Petitioner Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Respondent Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Samuel S. Shapiro, Applegate & Shapiro, Bloomington, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Atty. No. 0005657-49, Theodore E. Hansen, Deputy Atty. Gen., Atty. No. 0008279-49, Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant-appellant Wright appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.
We affirm.
On June 13, 1984, Wright entered a plea of guilty to operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a class D felony, but was sentenced to a class A misdemeanor pursuant to the trial judge's discretion as provided in IND.CODE 35-50-2-7(b). Wright attacks his guilty plea as not being entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily in three respects.
Wright first argues that he was not advised of the minimum sentence for a class D felony as required by IND.CODE 35-35-1-2(a)(3) even though he was informed of the alternative misdemeanant sentencing provision set out in I.C. 35-50-2-7(b) on which he was sentenced. However, a majority of our supreme court has recently stated that a defendant is properly advised of the minimum sentence for a class D felony when informed of the possible misdemeanant sentencing. See: Williams v. State, (1986) Ind., 493 N.E.2d 431, 432.
Wright next alleges the trial court's failure to advise him of license suspension ramifications before accepting his guilty plea also did not inform him of all possible minimum and maximum sentences as required by I.C. 35-35-1-2(a)(3). This likewise has no merit since the advisement of an administrative license suspension possibility is not required by I.C. 35-35-1-2, but instead is an ancillary matter addressed in IND.CODE 9-11-3-1 et. seq. In short, the suspension of driving privileges is not part of the sentence of which I.C. 35-35-1-2(a)(3) addresses.
Wright lastly contends the trial judge should have advised him of his right to appeal as required by IND.CODE 9-4-7-9(6) which involves accepting guilty pleas to traffic offenses. However, this statute was amended in 1981, as relevant here, to require this advisement only "before accepting a plea of guilty to a misdemeanor traffic offense." (our emphasis). Id. See also: Mottern v. State, (1984) Ind.App., 466 N.E.2d 488 (). Here, Wright was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stoltz v. State
...violate a constitutional right of the defendant is not a basis for setting aside a plea of guilty. (Emphasis added). In Wright v. State (1986), Ind.App., 495 N.E.2d 804, reh'g denied, trans. denied, we addressed an argument similar to that advanced here by Stoltz. There, Defendant alleged h......
-
Clayton v. State
...suspension and the lack of such an advisement does not render a defendant's guilty plea unintelligent or involuntary. Wright v. State, 495 N.E.2d 804, 805 (Ind.Ct.App.1986), reh'g. denied, trans. denied. Hence, the trial court did not err in summarily denying Clayton's petition on this B. A......
-
Williams v. State
...of her admission at a future probation revocation hearing was ancillary to the change of placement hearing. See Wright v. State, 495 N.E.2d 804, 805 (Ind.Ct.App. 1986) (holding that the trial court's advisement of the possibility of a license suspension was not required prior to the defenda......
-
Buckrop v. State, No. 32A01-0605-PC-178 (Ind. App. 12/12/2006)
...those cases are distinguishable. See Stoltz, 657 N.E.2d 188; Allender v. State, 560 N.E.2d 545 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990); Wright v. State, 495 N.E.2d 804 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986), trans. denied. In Wright, the petitioner alleged that his plea of guilty to OWI was not entered knowingly, intelligently......