Court Opinion

ID: 9719147
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:43:30.115589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:04.815142
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Garrard, J.
— While I agree with my brother’s analysis that since Boykin v. Alabama (1969), 395 U.S. 238, the arraignment record must affirmatively demonstrate the in-court advisement and waiver of constitutional rights, that is not the issue before this court.
This case is before us upon the denial by the trial court of the defendant’s motion to correct errors. As may be determined from the majority opinion, the motion to correct errors followed a plea of guilty entered by the defendant. The motion does not assert that the defendant was not advised of his constitutional rights but rather asserts that he was promised a “deal” by the prosecutor. Attached to the motion pursuant to the provisions of Indiana Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 59(D) are the affidavits of the defendant and the prosecutor, and it may be noted that the prosecutor’s affidavit alleges merely that the prosecutor would recommend a suspended sentence, which the record discloses was in fact done.
This same issue was recently before our Supreme Court in Crain v. State (1973), 261 Ind. 272, 301 N.E.2d 751, where after a plea of guilty the defendant Crain filed a motion to correct errors asserting that he understood he would get a lesser sentence than the one imposed and that he did not knowingly waive his various constitutional rights. In a brief and unanimous opinion our Supreme Court held that these matters are to be raised under Indiana Rules of Procedure, Post-Conviction Remedies, Rule 1; that a motion to correct errors addressed to a prior guilty plea raises nothing; and that the hearing procedures contemplated by PCR 1 provide the more appropriate forum for these matters.
*367While I recognize that the defendant is no doubt entitled to relief upon a properly filed PCR 1 petition raising the matters discussed by the majority, it is my belief that this is an insufficient basis for disregarding the appropriate procedural avenue. While in the case at bar the result might be rationalized for the time saved, it amounts to a further erosion of that small measure of procedural due process afforded the State of Indiana and citizenry at large in criminal proceedings. While the doctrine of fundamental error provides a sound basis for insuring the constitutional rights of one accused of crime, I believe it is improperly invoked where the proper procedural avenues to raise the issue are still available.
Accordingly, I would affirm the refusal to grant the motion to correct errors and await a proper presentation of the matters here involved.
Note. — Reported at 312 N.E.2d 109.