Court Opinion

ID: 9714203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:33:03.519047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:24.364142
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
dissenting.
Notwithstanding the long established principle that a guilty plea may not be challenged by a direct appeal, I subscribe to the wisdom and logic of the majority's position which in effect is: "Why not?". Our appellate courts have in fact done so. Perry v. State (1983) Ind., 447 N.E.2d 599; Browning v. State (1991) 2d Dist. Ind.App., 576 N.E.2d 1315. The majority makes eminent sense when it states that our Supreme Court should allow direct appeals of a guilty plea "where warranted". The question then becomes whether the present situation warrants a direct appeal in the manner in which it was brought here.5 I diverge somewhat from the determination made by the majority.
It is appropriate, however, that I first address my disagreement with the majority's conclusion as to the factual basis for the habitual offender guilty plea.
It is true that in the adversarial trial setting the State must prove the essential elements of the habitual offender status. As noted by the majority, one of those elements involves the sequence in which the prior unrelated felonies were committed in relation to commission of the principle offense for which the enhanced sentence is sought. Such proof must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. I.C. 835-50-2-8(d) (West's 1994 Supp.) That is not the case with regard to guilty pleas.
In a guilty plea situation, the State need only prove a "factual basis" upon which the plea may be made and accepted. In Frazier v. State (1986) Ind., 490 N.E.2d 315, 316, a unanimous Indiana Supreme Court held that "since a defendant may plea guilty to an habitual offender charge, [citation omitted] the State is relieved of its burden of proof on that charge just as a plea of guilty eliminates the need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the commission of the pending felony." To the same effect is Daugherity v. State (1989) 3d Dist. Ind.App., 547 N.E.2d 1116. It is important to note that in Frazier, as here, the dates of commission of the prior unrelated felonies were absent from the record. Frazier Record at 21. In Frazier, as stated in the opinion:
"The information showed the date, place and offense involved in the prior convictions.... The record does not show that they were viewed by the court and they *369were never introduced into evidence" 490 N.E.2d at 316.6
Nevertheless, the court held that the guilty plea was properly accepted. A similar result should obtain here. In light of the fact that Tumulty specifically admitted that he was an habitual offender with relationship to the three specifically charged prior felonies, I would hold that the trial court did not err in accepting the guilty plea.
Even were it otherwise, I would not reverse the habitual offender determination. I have previously stated my agreement with the majority's position that a direct appeal should not be automatically prohibited with regard to an attack upon a guilty plea.
In this regard, however, I believe the majority mistakenly relies upon Roe v. State (1992) 1st Dist.Ind.App., 598 N.E.2d 586, authored by Judge Baker, for the proposition that a failure to establish the dates upon which the prior felonies were committed is fatal to a guilty plea. Roe was impliedly overruled by Weatherford v. State (1993) Ind. 619 N.E.2d 915. Furthermore, in Lingler v. State (1994) 1st Dist.Ind.App., 685 N.E.2d 1102, Judge Najam speaking for the court and joined by Judge Robertson, who also concurred in Roe, and Judge Baker, held that in a postconviction setting, as was the situation in Frazier, Weatherford, Roe, and Daugherity:
"[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that his convictions did not occur in the required order. [Citation omitted] In other words, the post-conviction petitioner, not the State, bears the burden...." 685 N.E.2d at 1105.7
In my view, the person seeking to challenge his guilty plea habitual offender determination should not be permitted to avoid what would otherwise be his burden by asserting his challenge by direct appeal, rather than by post-conviction proceedings.8
The nature of the challenge posed by Tu-multy and the burden upon him to demonstrate prejudice clearly requires consideration of facts outside the record, ie., the actual dates of the commission of each prior felony and the dates of conviction. Accordingly, before an appellant could be successful upon a direct appeal, I would require that he utilize a Motion to Correct Error to demonstrate that he was prejudiced in that the prior convictions were not in the required sequence. The proceedings would certainly contemplate an evidentiary-type hearing, or at least affidavits or other documentation. Otherwise, I would require the convicted person to use, as in the past, the post-conviction process.
For the reasons set forth, I would affirm the judgment in all respects.

. It would seem that a direct appeal would be clearly warranted if the reversible error appears on the face of the record. Weyls v. State (1977) 266 Ind., 266 Ind. 301, 362 N.E.2d 481; Stone v. State (1992) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 599 N.E.2d 616; Woods v. State (1981) 1st Dist.Ind.App., 426 N.E.2d 107.

. The habitual charge in Frazier alleged the date of conviction of the two prior felonies, the counties in which those convictions took place and the specific felonies involved. The dates upon which the two felonies were committed were not contained in the charge.

. Upon transfer, our Supreme Court reiterated its holding in Weatherford, thereby approving and reinforcing Judge Najam's opinion. Lingler v. State (1994) Ind., 644 N.E.2d 131.

. It is the majority's position that it is fair to place a more onerous burden upon a post-conviction petitioner because "the petitioner had a prior opportunity to raise the issue in question and neglected that opportunity." Maj. op. at 367. If this supposition were uniformly true, I might agree. The procedures available under P.C. 1, however, exist precisely because the issue or issues sought to be raised were not known or available to the petitioner at the earlier time. Wallace v. State (1990) Ind., 553 N.E.2d 456; Smith v. State (1990) 2d Dist. Ind.App., 559 N.E.2d 338.