Court Opinion

ID: 9531209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:08:41.156983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:22.243707
License: Public Domain

CHEZEM, Judge.
Case Summary
Appellant-defendant, Randy L. Fletcher ("Fletcher"), appeals his conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor. We reverse and remand.
Issue
Fletcher presents two issues for review, which we consolidate and restate as: Was Fletcher entitled to a hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea?
Facts and Procedural History
On November 15, 1992, Fletcher was charged with operating while intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor.
Fletcher appeared in the Allen Superior Court on November 16, 1992, for his initial hearing. He viewed a televised advisement of rights shown to all defendants before the commencement of court. At his individual hearing, Fletcher informed the court that he understood the charge and his rights, and that he wished to plead guilty to operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The trial court accepted Fletcher's guilty plea.
The trial court conducted the sentencing hearing on December 17, 1992. On the same day as the hearing, Fletcher filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court denied the motion without conducting a hearing. Fletcher was sentenced to one year, suspended on the condition that he complete an alcohol countermeasures program.
Discussion and Decision
Fletcher contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea without holding a hearing. He argues that he did not understand the nature of the offense, that he did not make his guilty plea knowingly or intelligently, and that there was no factual basis to support his guilty plea.
The decision whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw a guilty plea rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Bewley v. State (1991), Ind.App., 572 N.E.2d 541, 543, trans. denied. Where a trial court denies such a motion, we indulge a presumption in favor of its ruling. Id. Reversal is warranted only when the record shows that the trial court has abused its discretion. Id. Further, if the defendant maintains his innocence at a hearing after the guilty plea but prior to sentencing, the trial court, in its discretion, may decline to set aside the plea. Id. at 544.
Under Ind.Code § 35-35-1-4(b), "the court shall allow the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty ... whenever the defendant *1166proves that withdrawal of the plea is necessary to correct a manifest injustice."
The trial court denied Fletcher's motion to withdraw his guilty plea without holding a hearing. By summarily denying the motion, the trial court denied Fletcher the opportunity to prove that withdrawal of his plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice. A defendant has the burden to prove with specific facts that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea. Smith v. State (1992), Ind.App., 596 N.E.2d 257, 259. However, a defendant cannot meet this burden when not allowed to present evidence to the trial court. Therefore, we find the trial court abused its discretion in summarily denying Fletcher's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Fletcher is entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing on his motion, regardless of whether he can successfully prove that withdrawal of the plea is necessary.
We reverse the summary ruling of the trial court and remand for a hearing on Fletcher's motion to withdraw guilty plea.
HOFFMAN, J., concurring with separate opinion.
BAKER, J., dissenting with separate opinion.