Case Name: Jerry W. Tyler v. State of Indiana
Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1973-05-16
Citations: 156 Ind. App. 248
Docket Number: No. 3-972A59
Parties: Jerry W. Tyler v. State of Indiana.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 156
Pages: 248–265

Head Matter:
Jerry W. Tyler v. State of Indiana.
[No. 3-972A59.
Filed May 16, 1973.
Rehearing denied July 3, 1973.
Transfer denied February 4, 1974.]
Larry Busick, Osterman & Busiek, of Fort Wayne, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General, Anthony J. Metz, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

Opinion:
Sharp, J.
On February 13, 1971 Chalmer Frank Boxell and his wife pulled into a parking lot across the street from the Boxell residence at 613 Osage Street, Fort Wayne, Indiana. As they were getting out of their car, the Appellant pulled up behind them and got out of his car with a rifle. He asked Mr. Boxell if the car which the Boxell's had just gotten out of belonged to Mr. Boxell who answered in the affirmative. Then the Appellant said, "Well, I've been hired to assassinate you." Mr. Boxell tried to tell the Appellant that there was a mistake but the Appellant replied, "No, I was sent down from Chicago and was paid to . . ." The Appellant and the Boxells then went into the latter's residence. While inside, the Appellant struck Mr. Boxell in the chest with the rifle and then placed it next to Mr. Boxell's throat. The Appellant told Mrs. Boxell, "Put the dog down, you know I'm going to have to shoot you too." When Mrs. Boxell put the dog down, Mr. Boxell grabbed the barrel of the rifle, but the Appellant struck him and rendered him unconscious.
As a result of the beating, Mr. Boxell received rather severe head injuries, fractured facial bones and a lot of stitches requiring hospitalization and resulting in scars and a crooked nose.
Fort Wayne police officers were summoned to the scene of the Boxell residence on a report of an armed man. Upon their arrival, they saw the Appellant flee with a rifle in his hand. The police officers pursued the Appellant and finally apprehended him in an alley and placed him under arrest. At that time the Appellant no longer had the rifle in his possession but his footprints left in the snow led the officers to some bushes where the rifle was found and an examination of it disclosed bits of flesh and blood in the chamber. The Appellant was charged with aggravated assault and fleeing from a police officer under IC 1971, 35-13-3-1, Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-410 (Burns 1972 Supp.) and IC 1971, 35-21-2-1, Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-1817 (Burns 1972 Supp.) respectively.
Between February 13, 1971 and January 7, 1972 negotiations took place between the Appellant, Mr. Boxell, and the Prosecuting Attorney. In these negotiations both the Appellant and Mr. Boxell were represented by counsel. These negotiations resulted in an agreement between the parties, which agreement was not reported to the trial court on or anytime before January 7, 1972. In essence the agreement provided that the Appellant would plead guilty to both charges, the same being aggravated assault and battery and fleeing a police oiflcer. The Appellant agreed to pay Mr. Boxell the sum of $5,000.00 as and for a settlement of a civil claim for damages resulting from assault and battery, for which Mr. Boxell would provide the Appellant a complete release. In addition, Mr. Boxell agreed to recommend that any jail time the Appellant received from the court be suspended. The Prosecuting Attorney agreed to make a recommendation on the fleeing charge of a fine of $500.00 and six month sentence in jail, the'six month jail sentence to be suspended. The Prosecuting Attorney further agreed to stand mute with regard to the aggravated assault and battery charge. This agreement was carried out and performed by each of the parties to it without deviation.
This case had originally been set down for trial to commence on January 7, 1972. On that day the Appellant withdrew his plea of not guilty to both of the charges and entered a plea of guilty. At that time the following relevant proceedings occurred between the trial court and the Appellant:
"Q. Before reading the charge to you and before asking you if you plead guilty or not guilty, you are instructed that the charge against you is a felony and that the penalty, as fixed by the legislature, is: . . . imprisonment for a period of 1 to 5 years and/or a fine of not less than-nor more than $1,000.00. . Do you understand this?
A. Yes.
Q. Is the plea you are about to enter being made of your own free will ?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it being made with full understanding of the consequences ?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it being made voluntarily ?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Has anyone made any promises to you or threatened you in any way to induce you to plead either guilty or not guilty?
A. No.
Q. Has your lawyer discussed with you and explained to you the questions which I have asked you from these mimeographed sheets concerning your arraignment?
A. Yes, he has.
Q. Did you do the acts alleged to have been done by you ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How do you plead — Guilty or not Guilty?
A. Guilty."
The Prosecuting Attorney in open court on January 7, 1972 did precisely as he had agreed to do. On January 7, 1972 the trial judge set February 7, 1972 as the date for sentencing. On February 7, 1972 Mr. Boxell asked the court to suspend any jail time the trial court might see fit to impose upon the Appellant but the court rejected that request and sentenced the Appellant for a term of one to five years. We have examined the complete transcript of the proceedings on February 7, 1972 and can find nothing in them in which the extent and nature of these negotiations were brought to the court's attention prior to the entry of the sentence. On February 7, 1972 the Appellant was sentenced for a period of not less than one year, nor more than five years and a fine of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) on the charge of aggravated assault. On the charge of fleeing a police officer Appellant was sentenced to six months on the Indiana State Farm and fined Fifty Dollars ($50.00). Both sentences were to run concurrently. However, just after the sentence was imposed the following occurred:
"MR. BUSICK: Your Honor, it might be a little bit out of line at this point, but obviously we had negotiated between ourselves here, subject to the Court's approval, because— well, now because of those negotiations going awry at this stage, I would ask the Court to consider giving the defendant two days to get his financial affairs as well as his family affairs in order prior to commencement of the sentence.
THE COURT: He has until 2/14/72.
MR. BUSICK. Thank you, Your Honor."
The transcript and record of this case discloses that the Appellant and his counsel studiously avoided giving the trial judge in this case any knowledge or notice of the aforesaid negotiations before the entry of sentence. This fact was admitted by Appellant's counsel in oral argument.
On June 14, 1972 the Appellant filed Motion to Correct Errors and then, for the first time, laid before the trial court the full nature and extent of the aforesaid negotiations and agreement. At no time in this case did the Appellant, through his counsel, make any formal request to the trial court to withdraw his pleas of guilty. The only assertions of a formal nature which were before the trial court were those in Appellant's Motion to Correct Errors. The colloquy between the trial court and Appellant's counsel on June 14, 1972 at that time when Appellant's Motion to Correct Errors was under consideration by the trial court is revealing:
"THE COURT: Mr. Busick, are you saying that this Court had knowledge of any arrangement prior to his entering this plea?
MR. BUSICK: Not at the time the plea was entered, Your Honor, no. I'm not saying that. I don't believe that's the case.
THE COURT: As a matter of fact, I didn't know anything about it until you stood here at this bench for sentencing.
MR. BUSICK: I believe that's true.
THE COURT: That's the first time I ever heard anything about any deal.
MR. BUSICK: As far as I know, that would be correct."
The negotiations above described, in essence, amounted to an attempt at a civil settlement of a criminal offense. It is elementary that the criminal process is designed for the protection of society as a whole and not to afford restitution to a single victim of a criminal action. The trial judge could not in good conscience allow Appellant to go free merely because he paid his victim the sum of $5,000.00. The trial judge was not privy to these negotiations and the record and assertions made in oral argument strongly suggest that they were deliberately withheld up to the time of sentencing. The quoted testimony at the time of the entry of the guilty plea on January 7, 1972 from the mouth of the Appellant under oath states categorically that no promises were made to him. The Appellant and his counsel engaged in a calculated strategy to withhold this information from the trial court before sentencing. In oral argument Appellant's counsel on several occasions admitted that Appellant's testimony on January 7,1972 that no promises had been made was categorically untrue.
The Appellant now asks for relief on the strength of the case of Dube v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 398, 275 N.E.2d 7. This writer believes generally that the factual context in which rules of law are announced are often an absolutely essential ingredient to a proper understanding and application of those announced rules. The facts in Dube V. State indicate it would have been a flagrant miscarriage of justice to deny the defendant in that case to withdraw his plea. In Dube the arrangement had been made with the authorities for the highly bona fide public purpose of securing evidence of criminal conduct in a forgery gang. In exchange for this information the Prosecuting Attorney was to recommend a suspended sentence for Dube. Dube made it quite clear that if he cooperated with the police his life would be in danger if he were imprisoned. He was assured that the trial court in that case would follow the Prosecutor's recommendation. At Dube's arraignment he entered a plea of guilty to forgery and the Prosecutor did not make his recommendation for suspended sentence at that time but did make it at the sen tencing. The court, however, rejected the Prosecutor's recommendation and sentenced Dube for a term of two to fourteen years. Immediately thereafter a rehearing was requested and both the defense counsel and the Prosecuting Attorney attempted to prevail upon the trial judge to honor their agreement. The trial judge, however, refused and our Supreme Court of this State reversed. One statement by our Supreme Court in Dube is revealing:
"Clearly, the mere expectation of receipt of a lesser sentence would not be sufficient to make a plea involuntary. . . . However, more than a mere expectation existed in this instance. Dube, who has only a fourth grade education, was told by his attorney that, althought the decision was up to the Judge, he had always gone along with the prosecutor's recommendation. Add to this the assurance given Dube by police officers that the prosecutor would make the recommendation as long as Dube cooperated, and the voluntariness of the guilty plea becomes highly suspect."
The contrast between Dube and Tyler is real and significant. Dube committed a crime not involving violence. Tyler committed a crime involving severe violence. One cannot question that violence when he observes the bloody and battered countenance of Mr. Boxell in a picture contained in the transcript. Tyler performed no public service in exchange for the recommendations of leniency but instead offered cash to his victim in exchange for the victim's recommendation. Dube cooperated fully with the authorities in shattering the forgery ring in which he was once a member in exchange for a recommendation by the prosecuting attorney for leniency. There is no evidence that Tyler would suffer bodily harm if he were incarcerated. Dube's life was threatened many times while he was incarcerated. The prosecuting attorney in Dube offered to recommend a suspended sentence for the one offense against Dube thus keeping Dube out of jail altogether. In this case the Prosecutor offered to recommend a sentence with regard to the charge of fleeing a police officer but he did not offer to make such a recommendation with regard to the charge of aggravated assault and battery, thus even under the agreement Tyler could have received jail time. In this connection it is important to emphasize that the recommendation for leniency with regard to the offense of aggravated assault and battery was given by Tyler's victim, as arranged, and not by the Prosecuting Attorney. In this case Tyler asks this court to give full force and effect to plea bargaining arrangements made between the prosecutor, defense and the State's material witness. Dube asked only to withdraw his plea and to stand trial for the crime with which he was charged.
This case essentially comes down to a question of time. Under the authority of the Dube case can a defendant, such as the Appellant here, deliberately withhold from the sentencing trial court any knowledge or notice of such a private agreement and then, after sentencing, be heard to complaint that such action renders the plea involuntary. We refuse to believe that our Supreme Court intended for Dube to be extended that far. If we put our judicial seal of approval on the arrangement here we are opening the door very wide to permit a defendant in a criminal proceeding to have it both ways, to win even while losing. We don't believe Dube addresses itself to the situation as here, where the defendant deliberately as a matter of calculated strategy withholds the knowledge of plea bargaining from the sentencing trial court until after the sentence is imposed. We cannot agree to this unwarranted extension of the Dube case.
After testifying in the trial court, under oath, on January 7, 1972 that no promises had been made in regard to a guilty plea the Appellant now attempts to rely on private promises made to him by his own counsel that the trial court would follow the recommendations of the victim and the prosecutor. Whether it was wise for Appellant's counsel to make such a promise to his client is a question we need not reach here. It seems clear enough that the trial court had a right to rely on the explicit statements, under oath, that no such promises were made. After having heard such explicit statements, the trial court was not chargeable with the knowledge of the private confidential communication between Appellant and his counsel. Such circumstances should not and, in our opinion cannot, be the basis of attacking the voluntariness of a plea. To impose such a burden on a trial court in the context of this case is to place on it an unconscionable dilemma. To permit the Appellant a new trial on this basis would give judicial sanction to perpetrating a fraud on the trial court. We do not read Dube as demanding such a result. Absent such a demand we decline to extend Dube to apply to these facts. The trial court adequately fulfilled his duty to make reasonable inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the guilty plea. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court should be and hereby is affirmed.
Hoffman, C.J., concurs; Staton, J., dissents with opinion.