Title: Hathaway v. State
Citation: 241 N.E.2d 240, 251 Ind. 374
Docket Number: 268S44
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: November 1, 1968

251 Ind. 374 (1968)
241 N.E.2d 240
HATHAWAY
v.
STATE OF INDIANA.
No. 268S44.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed November 1, 1968.
*375 John A. Kesler, Terre Haute, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Attorney General, and Murray West, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
LEWIS, C.J.
This is a criminal appeal from an adverse ruling on appellant's Verified Petition to Set Aside Judgment *376 and Withdraw Plea of Guilty, and also the appellant's Verified Petition for Correction of Sentence.
In 1954 appellant was arrested for the alleged rape of a 9-year-old girl. He was charged by affidavit with the crime of Rape pursuant to Burns' Indiana Statutes, Anno., (1956 Repl.), § 10-4201, the pertinent parts of which read as follows:
From a reading of the statute it is apparent that the prosecution could have prosecuted the appellant for the crime of rape of a girl under twelve [12] years of age, in which case the appellant would have received a sentence of life imprisonment. However, appellant was not so charged, and he received a lesser sentence.
Appellant made a confession to the police which substantially stated that he had attempted to rape the young girl in question, but had not succeeded in actual penetration because her vagina was too small.
The appellant was duly provided with a pauper attorney who appeared with him at the arraignment on December 3, 1954, at which time the appellant entered a plea of guilty. The appellant's plea was accepted by the court and he was sentenced to prison for a term of 2-to-21 years.
On September 1, 1967, nearly thirteen (13) years later, the appellant filed his petitions to withdraw his plea, and to correct his sentence. The petitions were denied, and it is from that ruling that he appeals to this Court.
Succinctly stated, the appellant raises the following errors:
Another way of putting the alleged errors would be that appellant contends the confession proves that he did not commit the crime of which he was accused, and that if he had been sufficiently apprised by the trial judge of the crime of which he was charged, he would not have entered a plea of guilty.
Appellee raises the argument that after a period of thirteen (13) years, the appellant cannot properly file a motion to withdraw his plea. Appellee cites Snow v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 423, 195 N.E.2d 468, as authority for the legal proposition that after a plea of guilty has been entered, the motion must be filed in the trial court within the term of conviction, and that there is no appeal from a sentence which has been rendered on a plea of guilty. As a general rule, appellee is correct in his statement of law. However, on petition for rehearing, at page 428 of Snow v. State, supra, the following statement appears:
Since appellant is raising the question of the competency of his counsel and the entering of his plea without sufficient understanding, he should be allowed to be heard. We cannot say, without looking to the substance of his claims, whether or not appellant's constitutional rights were violated; therefore, we will decide this matter on the merits.
It is now well settled in Indiana law that upon a *378 plea of guilty being entered, the court may render judgment and sentence.
Our research has not indicated that this is not still an accurate statement of the law.
Any arguments as to the sufficiency of the evidence are not relevant. When the appellant chose to plead guilty and to waive a trial he also chose to waive the protection of having the charge proved against him. What must be considered is whether or not the plea was entered freely and understandingly. In order to determine this, we must look to the circumstances surrounding the entering of the plea.
Examination of the record reveals that the appellant appeared in court represented by counsel. The trial judge advised the appellant of the crime of which he was charged. When the trial judge asked the appellant how he wished to plead, guilty or not guilty, appellant's counsel entered a plea of guilty.
At this time the trial judge inquired as to whether the appellant had been promised anything to enter his guilty *379 plea and he also advised the appellant that he wasn't required to plead guilty, but that he was entitled to have the charge proved against him by the State, and that he could have a trial by jury. The appellant stated that he had been in court before and that he understood the proceedings; that knowing all this, he wanted to plead guilty. The appellant said he had discussed this matter with his attorney. The court then accepted the appellant's plea of guilty.
It is manifest that the appellant was given ample opportunity to plead not guilty, and he, voluntarily, chose not to do so. We can see no way in which the trial judge acted improperly in this matter.
It is also alleged that appellant's counsel was incompetent. After a careful study of the record, we can find no basis for appellant's allegations. In the absence of any affirmative showing, we cannot, as a matter of law, rule appellant's counsel incompetent.
Therefore, we hold that the defendant freely and understandingly made his plea of guilty. Snow v. State, supra.
The granting or denial of a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is within the sound discretion of the Trial Court.
*380 Also, in making his motion to the court, the burden of proof is on the moving party.
Although the above case, Kuhn v. State, was decided before Rules 2-40 and 2-40A were amended, the burden of proof still remains on the moving party.
We conclude the petitions were properly overruled by the court below. Appellant has not sufficiently proven to us that the plea was not freely and understandingly entered, nor that his counsel was incompetent. Therefore, seeing no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
DeBruler and Hunter, JJ., concur; Arterburn, J., concurs in result; Jackson, J., dissents with opinion.
JACKSON, J.
My dissent herein is based on a philosophical difference of opinion with existing law rather than a disagreement with the majority opinion as written or the cases cited. I readily admit that the law in Indiana, as it exists today, fully supports the majority opinion.
I am of the opinion that, as is well exemplified in the case at bar, a plea of guilty should not be accepted and sentence imposed without independent proof of the corpus delicti. The House of Delegates of the American Bar Association at their mid-winter meeting in Chicago approved minimum standards *381 for the administration of criminal justice. Among those standards was the following relating to Pleas of Guilty, published in February 1968, which in part are as follows:
"Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty.
Further the standards provide this additional safeguard "In accepting any plea, the court must also make on the record an inquiry to insure that there is a factual basis for the defendant's plea."
In the case at bar the appellant's lawyer permitted, perhaps even urged the defendant to enter a plea of guilty to a charge of rape when the lawyer had not seen the defendant's written confession. After appellant had entered his plea of guilty, the State introduced the written confession of the appellant which showed conclusively that appellant was not guilty of the crime of rape but only of an attempt to commit the crime of rape. Admittedly the intent and the *382 attempt to consummate the crime of rape were present, but on account of the small size of the intended victim the appellant was unable to consummate the rape because of failure to make any penetration of her vagina. Thus in the case at bar the evidence adduced to sustain the plea of guilty tends to disprove rather than sustain the plea.
The doctrine in Indiana, sustained by stare decisis, is well stated in the majority opinion as follows: "Any arguments as to the sufficiency of the evidence are not relevant. When the appellant chose to plead guilty and to waive a trial he also chose to waive the protection of having the charge proved against him." It is this anomaly in the law to which I dissent, as in the case at bar there is no factual basis for the appellant's plea of guilty to the charge of rape.
Motion for new trial should be granted.
NOTE.  Reported in 241 N.E.2d 240.