Court Opinion

ID: 9713018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:05:14.762676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:15.825382
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
Despite the fact that during the period prior to 1978, there was no rule or statute expressly requiring a judge in accepting a plea of guilty in a felony case to address the defendant and to take evidence to establish a factual basis when receiving a guilty plea, many judges did so. In so doing, judges were responding to: (1) the great importance accorded the integrity of plea proceedings by Rule 1-11 of this Court, first effective in 1946, requiring an immediate written transcript of them; (2) the close factual serutiny required for approval of some civil settlements, and (8) case law which required a judge to insure that a plea of guilty was made both voluntarily and with an actual awareness of the consequences. Batchelor v. State (1920), 189 Ind. 69, 125 N.E. 773. Mislik v. State (1915), 184 Ind. 72, 110 N.E. 551. With respect the Rule 1-11, this Court has said:
One of the reasons for the adoption of Rule 1-11 supra, by this court is to provide an unimpeachable record showing the extent of the inquiry into the facts, cireumstances and conditions made by the trial court to ascertain at the time whether the offered plea of guilty is made freely and understandingly. Without such record the trial court is, by its own volition, shorn of the procedural facts that might protect its judgment from attack.
Campbell v. State (1951), 229 Ind. 198, 202, 96 N.E.2d 876, 877. With respect to civil settlements this Court stated that:
By the great weight of authority it has repeatedly been held that a court may set aside a consent judgment following a compromise of a minor's claim where there has been no real examination of the facts to determine whether the settlement is for the best interest of the minor.
Dearing v. Speedway Realty Co. (1942), 111 Ind.App. 585, 594, 40 N.E.2d 414, 417.
The marriage of the plea record and the post-conviction record should produce a judgment favorable to appellant, even under imprecise legal standards applicable in 1965. Appellant was represented by counsel, but was only seventeen years old. The trial court determined only that appellant knew his right to trial by jury or by court and that he had not been promised or threatened. There was no record of any advice of other rights having been given by the Court or by counsel. A statement of appellant to police was presented to the Court. Defense counsel did tender a "plea of guilty as charged." The charging instrument was formalistic and obtuse. At the post-conviction hearing the prosecutor believed that the defendant had pleaded guilty to joy riding, a misdemeanor.
Despite the absence of any express "factual basis" requirement applicable to all felony plea proceedings, the facts and circumstances and inferences from the proceedings that were readily apparent to the judge receiving this plea imposed a special duty on him to require a "factual basis", that is, to get to know what appellant's conduct had been so that it might be considered in relation to the charged crime. I agree with the Court of Appeals majority that the combined records support the claim that appellant's "plea of guilty as charged" when the charge recited that he "knowingly ... obtained and exercised unauthorized control over a certain vehicle . intending to deprive fits owner] ... permanently of the use and benefit of said property" was not voluntary. I would grant post-conviction relief in the form of permission to withdraw the plea of guilty.