Opinion ID: 2097779
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Habitual Offender Advisement

Text: Bates alleges that his plea of guilty to both criminal deviate conduct and battery was not knowing and voluntary because his trial counsel had erroneously advised him that he was eligible to be charged as a habitual offender. A letter from counsel corroborates the claimed misadvice. Misadvice regarding potential habitual offender status may well be a factor in an unintelligent guilty plea. See Nash v. State (1981), Ind. App., 429 N.E.2d 666; Munger v. State (1981), Ind. App., 420 N.E.2d 1380. In this case, Bates was properly advised about the possibility of habitual offender charges before his guilty plea was accepted. At the guilty plea hearing, the judge stated, You are not eligible for an habitual... . Bates testified at the post-conviction hearing that he understood the judge's advice. Q: When the judge told you that you were not eligible for the ... habitual offender charge at your guilty plea hearing, did that resolve all doubt in your mind? A: Yes. Q: That you were or were not eligible for the habitual offender? A: That I were not. Bates understood at the time his plea was entered that he was not eligible to be charged as a habitual offender. Misadvice from his attorney did not render his guilty plea unknowing or involuntary. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. DeBRULER, GIVAN, PIVARNIK and DICKSON, JJ., concur.