Court Opinion

ID: 9716359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:35:28.975393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:44.341848
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Staton, P.J.
The post conviction record, which consisted of a defense counsel’s testimony as to what Garcia was advised regarding his constitutional rights before he entered his guilty plea, can not be substituted for a silent guilty plea record on appeal. Both the Statute, IC 1971, 35-4.1-1-3 and *96Boykin, supra, prohibit any attempted rehabilitation of the guilty plea proceedings. Additionally, Indiana Rules of Criminal Procedure, CR. 10, contemplates that only the record made at the time when the guilty plea is offered by the defendant and accepted by the trial court be reviewed on appeal.1
Campbell v. State (1975), 262 Ind. 594, 321 N.E.2d 560, was dealing with a pre-Boykin guilty plea.2 There was no question of voluntariness in Campbell—the only question was whether the guilty plea was made knowingly and intelligently.3 Justice Prentice, writing for the Indiana Supreme Court in Campbell, stated: “However, for the reasons expressed in Conley v. State (1972), [259] Ind. [29], 284 N.E.2d 803, we decline to follow Boykin as was done in Brimhall and Bonner. ... In Conley, we declined to give Boykin retroactive application and held that in the absence of an allegation and the showing of ineffective counsel, we would conclude that the attorney provided full and adequate assistance.” 321 N.E.2d at 563-4. The Indiana Supreme Court concluded in Campbell that it would not apply Boykin retroactively and that the record clearly indicated that the guilty plea was knowingly and intelligently entered.
Note.—Reported at 326 N.E.2d 822.

. Indiana Rules of Criminal Procedure, CR. 10 provides: “. . . Thereafter in any proceeding questioning the validity of such arraignment, plea of guilty or judgment rendered thereon, such transcript shall be taken and considered as the record of the proceedings transcribed therein and upon appeal the original may be incorporated without copying as a part of the record in such appeal over the certificate of the clerk or a copy of said transcript may be included in a bill of exceptions.”

. “However, this defendant’s guilty plea came two years before Boykin was decided.” Campbell, supra, 321 N.E.2d at 564. Campbell’s guilty plea also preceded the Statute, IC 1971, 35-4.1-1-3.

. Two issues were identified and discussed in Campbell, supra: “. . . It presents two issues: (1) If the defendant lacked knowledge of whether or not he was guilty, as he alleged, was his guilty plea thereby rendered void? (2) Did the trial court’s failure to advise the defendant of his constitutional right to confront his accusers and of the constitutional prohibition against compulsory self-incrinrination render his guilty plea void? . . .” 321 N.E.2d at 561.