Case Title: Zimmerman v. State

Citation: 436 N.E.2d 1087

Docket Number: 881S205

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1982-06-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
436 N.E.2d 1087 (1982)
Jerry Dean ZIMMERMAN, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
No. 881S205.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
June 23, 1982.
Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Robert H. Hendren, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Carmen L. Quintana, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
PRENTICE, Justice.
Petitioner (Appellant) was convicted on two counts of Murder in the Second Degree, Ind. Code § 35-1-54-1 (Burns 1975), and was sentenced to concurrent terms of not less than fifteen (15) years nor more than twenty-five (25) years imprisonment. This appeal from the denial of post conviction relief presents but one issue.
Petitioner pled guilty on May 5, 1975. On October 11, 1979 he filed a petition for post conviction relief which alleges that the guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered.
In the interim the tape recording of the guilty plea hearing had been lost or inadvertently destroyed. Based upon representations of the judge, who took the plea, and the prosecutor, who was present at the hearing, that they had made copious notes of the proceeding, the trial court ordered the State to submit a record pursuant to Ind.R.App.P. 7.2(A)(3)(c). The State submitted the record, over Petitioner's objection, and the record was subsequently certified by the judge, who presided at the guilty plea hearing.
*1088 Petitioner contends that the trial court's failure to make and to retain a record of his guilty plea pursuant to Ind.R.Crim.P. 10 requires the vacation of the plea. He also contends that the post conviction court erred in resorting to Ind.R.App.P. 7.2(A)(3)(c) in order to obtain a record where there was none and that to supplement a silent record of a guilty plea in that manner is contrary to the scope and purpose of Ind.R.Crim.P. 10.
At the time of the guilty plea Ind.R. Crim.P. 10 read as follows:
At the hearing on the post conviction petition the parties stipulated
The purpose of Ind.R.Crim.P. 10 is to provide a transcript of the evidence taken at the guilty plea hearing in order to facilitate review in any later proceeding questioning the validity of the plea. Maleck v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 604, 606, 358 N.E.2d 116, 117. Thus the rule was designed to prevent what occurred here; however, nothing in the language of the rule addresses the consequences of a failure to make the transcript.
Based upon our decisions, we think that the loss of a record or transcript of a guilty plea hearing does not require a vacation of the plea, per se. See Osborne v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 455, 456-57, 317 N.E.2d 856, 857. In cases, which treat situations analogous to Petitioner's, we have refused to order a new trial. In these cases, the record of the trial, or a portion thereof, became unavailable before Defendant took a timely direct appeal or a belated direct appeal under Ind.R.P.C. 2. In each case we held that Ind.R.App.P. 7.2(A)(3)(c) provided a means to produce a record for *1089 review on appeal, and that the rule abrogated the old practice of ordering a new trial when the transcript of the evidence was unavailable. Craig v. State, (1980) Ind., 404 N.E.2d 580, 583; Oricks v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 680, 688, 377 N.E.2d 1376, 1380; Ruetz v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 42, 45, 373 N.E.2d 152, 154, cert. denied, (1978) 439 U.S. 897, 99 S. Ct. 261, 58 L. Ed. 2d 245. See Groff v. State, (1981) Ind. App., 415 N.E.2d 721, 724. An exception to these cases, which does not apply to the case at bar, arises when reconstruction of the record is not possible. Gallagher v. State, (1980) Ind., 410 N.E.2d 1290, 1293.
We see nothing about criminal Rule 10 that precludes resort to Appellate Rule 7.2(A)(3)(c) in order to provide a reliable record from which to determine if the requirements of the criminal rule were complied with. Indeed, resort to such rule may, in another case, be necessary to enable a petitioner to prove his claim. In view of the heavy burden which a post conviction petitioner bears, and our standard of review in appeals therefrom, Popplewell v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 15, 17, Beard v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 772, 775, a petitioner would be hard pressed to prove his claim, in the absence of a record. Without such record, a petitioner would have to rely upon witnesses, whose memories or credibility may be subject to severe scrutiny by the trial judge and whose testimony he is not required to believe.
The record shows that the petitioner did not avail himself of the provisions of Appellate Rule 7.2(A)(3)(c) allowing him to participate in the reconstruction of the lost record. Instead, he stood upon his belief that a lost record was per se the equivalent of a silent record.
We find no error. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
GIVAN, C.J., and DeBRULER, HUNTER and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur.