Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1504-CR-143 | November 9, 2015] Page 1 of 10

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Jeffrey E. Stratman

Aurora, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Katherine Modesitt Cooper

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Donald G. Huntington,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

November 9, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

15A05-1504-CR-143

Appeal from the Dearborn Circuit 

Court

The Honorable James D. 

Humphrey, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

15C01-0911-FB-29

Kirsch, Judge.

[1] After pleading guilty to Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious 

violent felon and being an habitual offender, Donald G. Huntington now 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1504-CR-143 | November 9, 2015] Page 2 of 10

appeals and raises one issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion when 

it denied his oral request at the sentencing hearing to withdraw his guilty plea.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On November 20, 2009, the State charged Huntington with Count I, Class C 

felony burglary; Count II, Class D felony theft; Count III, Class D felony 

criminal mischief; Count IV, Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious 

violent felon, and with being an habitual offender. The charges stemmed from 

a burglary at a car wash located in Dearborn County on October 29, 2008. The 

initial hearing was delayed because of Huntington’s involvement in criminal 

proceedings in Ripley County, but was eventually held on January 1, 2014. 

Huntington and his counsel appeared at the February 13, 2015 final pretrial 

conference. On that date, Huntington and the State entered into a negotiated 

plea agreement (“Agreement”), under which Huntington agreed to plead guilty 

to Count IV and the habitual offender enhancement, and the State agreed to 

dismiss the remaining charges. The Agreement provided for a maximum 

aggregate sentence of thirty years with ten years suspended. 

[4] At the guilty plea hearing, the trial court had the following dialogue with 

Huntington:

Q: Sir, I need to know have you ever been treated for any mental 

illness?
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1504-CR-143 | November 9, 2015] Page 3 of 10

A: Yes, I have.

Q: What is the nature of that, sir?

A: I’m not on medication no more.

Q: Okay. What is your diagnosis?

A: Schizophrenic.

Q: OK. And, are you still suffering from that condition?

A: I’m not . . . I’m no longer on medication.

Q: Okay. So does this condition [a]ffect your ability to 

understand what we’re doing here today?

A: No, sir.

Tr. at 4-5. Then the trial court asked defense counsel:

Q: [Counsel], does this raise any possible defenses or [a]ffect Mr. 

Huntington’s ability to proceed here today?

A: Not to my knowledge, Judge.

Id. at 5. 

[5] Thereafter, the trial court, among other things, advised Huntington of his 

constitutional rights, informed him of the State’s burden of proof if he went to 

trial, and explained that he was giving up the right to appeal his conviction by 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1504-CR-143 | November 9, 2015] Page 4 of 10

pleading guilty. The trial court confirmed that Huntington was represented by 

counsel and that he was satisfied with his counsel’s representation. The trial 

court reviewed the charges, and confirmed that Huntington understood the 

charges and the potential penalties he would face if he went to trial. The trial 

court reviewed the specific terms of the plea agreement and established that 

Huntington had not received anything in value in exchange for his plea and that 

it was made freely. Huntington agreed to the factual basis for the Class B 

felony unlawful possession of a firearm charge, including that which caused 

him to be classified a serious violent offender, and he agreed to the habitual 

offender enhancement. Huntington acknowledged that it was his decision to 

plead guilty. 

[6] After determining that Huntington’s plea was knowingly and freely made, and 

that a factual basis existed for the plea, the trial court took particular note of the 

mental health issue and stated, 

I’m also going to note based upon Mr. Huntington’s comments 

about his . . . appears to be a previous mental condition, that Mr. 

Huntington appears to have fully understood the discussion 

we’ve had here today, and appears to be . . . [] this has played no 

part . . . and again, affecting his ability to understand this . . . 

these proceedings and enter this plea.

Tr. at 18 (ellipses in original, alteration added in brackets). Huntington’s 

counsel then stated, “That’s been my perception as well in my dealing with Mr. 

Huntington, Judge[,]” to which the State followed up with, “And, I would 

agree as well, Your Honor.” Id. The trial court took the matter under 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1504-CR-143 | November 9, 2015] Page 5 of 10

advisement, ordered preparation of a presentence investigation report, and 

scheduled the matter for a sentencing hearing on March 13, 2015. 

[7] At the beginning of the sentencing hearing, Huntington’s counsel orally made a 

motion to withdraw Huntington’s guilty plea. Huntington was sworn in as a 

witness, and his counsel examined him, during which Huntington testified to 

the basis of his desire to withdraw the guilty plea, initially stating that “nobody 

ever had me evaluated[.]” Tr. at 22. He continued, “Plus, I never did have the 

full discovery of my case” prior to the guilty plea, asserting that his attorney 

“kept it all hid from me” and was “ineffective.” Id. Huntington stated that he 

had attempted suicide and that his “parole lady” had mistreated him, and that 

he had been through treatments “since I’ve been down at Pendleton.” Id. at 22-

23. His counsel inquired further about Huntington’s reference to psychological 

treatment, and Huntington indicated he was treated in 2009 and for some 

period thereafter, but that he was taken off medication “a little over a year ago,” 

while he was housed “at Miami[.]”1 Id. at 25. His counsel asked him,

Q: So, being taken off the medication, did that . . . does that 

affect your ability to read?

A: No, no, it don’t affect my ability to read.

Q: Okay. Does it affect your ability to understand this 

Negotiated Plea Agreement?

 

1

It appears Huntington is referring to the Miami Correctional Facility.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1504-CR-143 | November 9, 2015] Page 6 of 10

A: No, but I still need treatment, I’m going right back through 

the same mess again.

Id. When Huntington’s counsel asked Huntington to explain to the trial court 

why it should allow him “to get out of” the Agreement, Huntington said, “All 

Right. Your Honor, I would like to go ahead and excuse him for ineffective 

Counsel[.]” Id. at 26. The trial court ended the testimony, opining, “I think 

Mr. Huntington just wants to get out of his plea[.]” Id. It thereafter denied 

Huntington’s motion, and Huntington now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Indiana Code section 35-35-1-4(b) governs motions to withdraw guilty pleas. It 

provides that a defendant may move to withdraw a plea of guilty after pleading 

guilty but before a sentence is imposed. Ind. Code § 35-35-1-4(b). Our courts 

have explained:

The court must allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea if 

“necessary to correct a manifest injustice.” By contrast, the court 

must deny the motion if withdrawal of the plea would 

“substantially prejudice[ ]” the State. In all other cases, the court 

may grant the defendant’s motion to withdraw a guilty plea “for 

any fair and just reason.” 

Peel v. State, 951 N.E.2d 269, 271 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (internal citations 

omitted) (quoting Brightman v. State, 758 N.E.2d 41, 44 (Ind. 2001)). Indiana 

Code section 35-35-1-4(b) requires that the motion “shall be in writing and 

verified.” A defendant has the burden to establish his grounds for relief by a 

preponderance of the evidence. Ind. Code § 35-35-1-4(e).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1504-CR-143 | November 9, 2015] Page 7 of 10

[9] A trial court’s ruling on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea “arrives in this 

Court with a presumption in favor of the ruling.” Brightman, 758 N.E.2d at 44 

(citing Coomer v. State, 652 N.E.2d 60, 62 (Ind. 1995)); McGraw v. State, 938 

N.E.2d 1218, 1220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (trial court’s ruling on motion to 

withdraw guilty plea is presumed to be correct), trans. denied. The trial court’s 

ruling on the motion “shall be reviewable on appeal only for an abuse of 

discretion.” Ind. Code § 35-35-1-4(b). We will not disturb the trial court’s 

ruling where it was based on conflicting evidence. Smallwood v. State, 773 

N.E.2d 259, 264 (Ind. 2002). In determining whether a trial court has abused 

its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, we examine the 

statements made by the defendant at his guilty plea hearing to decide whether 

his plea was offered “freely and knowingly.” Brightman, 758 N.E.2d at 44. 

[10] As an initial matter, we note that Indiana Code section 35-35-1-4(b) required 

Huntington to tender a written and verified motion that presented specific facts 

to support the withdrawal of the guilty plea. He did not do so. Rather, 

Huntington orally moved for withdrawal of his guilty plea at the beginning of 

the sentencing hearing. By failing to submit a written, verified motion, he has 

waived the issue of whether the trial court wrongfully denied his request. See 

Peel, 951 N.E.2d at 272 (citing Carter v. State, 739 N.E.2d 126, 128 n.3 (Ind. 

2000) (“A defendant’s failure to submit a verified, written motion to withdraw a 

guilty plea generally results in waiver of the issue of wrongful denial of the 

request.”)). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1504-CR-143 | November 9, 2015] Page 8 of 10

[11] Waiver notwithstanding, we find no trial court error. Here, Huntington “does 

not argue that manifest injustice [] occurred[,]” such that the trial court would 

have been required under the statute to grant his motion. Appellant’s Br. at 5. 

Rather, Huntington argues that his “well-established” mental health condition 

“was fair and just reason for the trial court to allow [him] to withdraw his guilty 

plea” and that the trial court abused its discretion when it did not permit him to 

do so.2 Id. at 6. However, upon review, we discern an exercise of discretion, 

not an abuse of it. 

[12] Here, at the commencement of the sentencing hearing, after Huntington moved 

for withdrawal of his plea, the trial court received testimony from Huntington, 

which included that he had not been evaluated psychologically, had not 

received full discovery prior to pleading guilty, and had previously undergone 

psychological treatment in 2009 and for some period thereafter. Huntington 

testified that he had been taken off medications “a little over a year ago” while 

at the Miami Correctional Facility. Tr. at 25. He expressly testified that being 

taken off medication did not affect his ability to understand the plea agreement. 

Id.

 

2 Huntington suggests, “At a minimum, the [trial] court should have allowed a continuance of the sentencing 

hearing to investigate further the state of [Huntington’s] mental capacity.” Appellant’s Br. at 3. According to 

the record before us, no party requested a continuance of the hearing. On appeal, Huntington provides no 

additional argument or authority for the proposition that the trial court should have sua sponte ordered a 

continuance or that it committed reversible error by failing to do so. Huntington has thus waived, and we do 

not further address, the argument. Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8); Jackson v. State, 758 N.E.2d 1030, 1037 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (failure to cite appropriate authority results in waiver). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1504-CR-143 | November 9, 2015] Page 9 of 10

[13] In order to determine whether a plea was freely and voluntarily made, we also 

review the statements made by a defendant during a guilty plea hearing. 

McGraw, 938 N.E.2d at 1220. Here, at the guilty plea hearing, Huntington 

stated that previously he had been diagnosed “schizophrenic” and treated for 

that condition. Tr. at 5. The trial court asked Huntington if he was still 

suffering from that condition, to which Huntington replied, “I’m not . . . I’m no 

longer on medication.” Id. The trial court specifically questioned Huntington, 

“Does this condition [a]ffect your ability to understand what we are doing here 

today?” and Huntington responded, “No, sir.” Id. Huntington gave lucid and 

appropriate responses to each question posed to him. Before the conclusion of 

the proceedings, the trial court recognized that Huntington’s testimony reflected 

a previous mental condition, but continued that “Huntington appears to have 

fully understood the discussion we’ve had here today[.]” Id. at 18. Thereafter, 

Huntington’s counsel and the prosecutor each affirmatively indicated that he 

did not perceive any issues with regard to Huntington’s ability to understand 

the proceedings and enter the guilty plea. Given the record before us, we 

cannot say that the trial court’s decision to deny Huntington’s oral motion to 

withdraw his guilty plea was an abuse of discretion.3 

 

3

In his Reply Brief, Huntington continues to argue that it was an abuse of discretion to deny his motion, but 

alternatively argues that “manifest injustice” existed under the circumstances because his trial counsel was 

not rendering effective assistance, such that he “was left to argue his motion in a pro se manner.” Reply Br. at 

4. He claims that, because his mental capacity was at issue, it constituted manifest injustice “to expect [him] 

to properly file a written and pro se request to withdraw his guilty plea, or to expect him to communicate that 

desire effectively to his appointed counsel.” Id. at 2. Therefore, he claims, the trial court was required under 

Indiana Code section 35-35-1-4(b) to grant his motion. Huntington acknowledges that “[he] did not raise an 

issue of manifest injustice in his original brief[.]” Id. at 5. Because Huntington failed to raise the issue in his 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1504-CR-143 | November 9, 2015] Page 10 of 10

[14] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Barnes, J. concur.

 

principal appellate brief, the issue is waived. Ind. Appellate Rule 46(C) (“No new issues shall be raised in the 

reply brief.”); Sisson v. State, 985 N.E.2d 1, n.8 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (party cannot raise argument for first time 

in reply brief), trans. denied. Regardless of waiver, we find that the facts before us do not demonstrate that 

withdrawal of Huntington’s guilty plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice.