Court Opinion

ID: 9539904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:11:30.266793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:27.234770
License: Public Domain

HUNTER, Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in result.
I concur in the result reached by the majority; likewise, I concur in part with the rationale upon which post-conviction relief must be granted. The momentous consequences attendant to the entry of a guilty plea render it a “grave and solemn act” to be accepted by the trial court “only with care and discernment.” Brady v. United States, (1970) 397 U.S. 742, 748, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1468, 25 L.Ed.2d 747, 756; see also Boykin v. Alabama, (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274; Stowers v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 403, 363 N.E.2d 978. Our legislature recognized the significance attached to a plea of guilt and wisely imposed a statutory duty on the trial court to insure the plea is knowingly and intelligently entered. The statute governing the entry and acceptance of a guilty plea reads:
“Sec. 3. Defendant to be advised by court. The court shall not accept a plea of guilty from the defendant without first addressing the defendant and
“(a) determining that he understands the nature of the charge against him;
“(b) informing him that by his plea of guilty he is admitting the truth of all facts alleged in the indictment or information or to an offense included thereunder and that upon entry of such plea the court shall proceed with judgment and sentence;
“(c) informing him that by his plea of guilty he waives his rights to a public and speedy trial by jury, to face the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and to require the state to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant may not be compelled to testify against himself;
“(d) informing him of the maximum possible sentence and minimum sentence for the offense charged and of any possible increased sentence by reason of the fact of a prior conviction or convictions, and of any possibility of the imposition of consecutive sentences;
“(e) informing him that the court is not a party to any agreement which may have been made between the prosecutor and the defense and is not bound thereby.”
Ind.Code §§ 35-4.1-1-3 (Burns 1979 Repl.); (emphasis added).
This Court has repeatedly emphasized that strict compliance with the statute is demanded of our trial courts. Romine v. State, (1982) Ind., 431 N.E.2d 780, 782; German v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 234 (Givan, C.J., and Pivarnik, J., dissenting); Turman v. State, (1979) Ind., 392 N.E.2d 483. See also, Bullock v. State, (1981) Ind.App., 406 N.E.2d 1220; Barfell v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 399 N.E.2d 377.
The affirmative statutory duty and “strict compliance” requirement serve three important purposes. First and most obvious, it insures that the defendant is apprised of the consequences his plea entails, including the waiver of the various constitutional rights enumerated in the statute. Second, it insures that the trial court is satisfied that the defendant understands the nature of the rights and is intelligently forsaking them; due to the gravity of the consequences attendant to the plea, it is the trial court, in its role as impartial and detached arbiter, which is suited to make that determination. Brady v. United States, supra, Boykin v. Alabama, supra; Maleck v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 604, 358 N.E.2d 116 (Arterburn, Givan, JJ., dissenting); Brimhall v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 153, 279 N.E.2d *1075557; Barfell v. State, supra. Third, the duty and requirement, once properly discharged, creates a record which objectively reflects the extent of a defendant’s knowledge and understanding of his rights and the consequences of the plea at the time it was entered. In turn, that record forecloses the initiation of post-conviction proceedings which clog our court dockets and eliminate the dubious and subjective after-the-fact assessment of a defendant’s knowledge and understanding at the time the plea was entered and accepted. Boykin v. State, supra. The latter concern is of particular significance in light of the rule that every reasonable presumption must be indulged against a waiver of a fundamental constitutional right. Brimhall v. State, supra; see also, Johnson v. Zerbst, (1938) 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461.
It is for all these reasons that this Court has so recently reiterated the need for trial courts to strictly comply with' Ind.Code § 35-4.1-1-3, supra. Romine v. State, supra; German v. State, supra. Likewise, it is these concerns which prompted this Court in German to hold that a term contained in a written plea agreement may not “be considered an adequate substitute for a personal advisement of so fundamental a matter as the concept of waiver.” German v. State, supra, 428 N.E.2d at 237. And it is for these reasons that in German, we overruled cases wherein strict compliance had not occurred. There, we stated:
“Neely v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 588, 382 N.E.2d 714, and other cases, to the extent that they held that the statutory obligation of the trial judge to inform the defendant that a plea of guilty operates as a waiver or surrender of the above enumerated rights may be met by something short of a direct statement to that effect, are overruled.” Id., 428 N.E.2d at 238.
At issue before us is the trial court’s failure to inform defendant that by his plea of guilt he was waiving his constitutional right to compulsory process — a “vital” and fundamental right. Shelor v. State, (1979) 270 Ind. 454, 457, 386 N.E.2d 690, 692. This case thus falls within the purview of German v. State, supra, which involved the failure of the court to advise defendant his plea of guilt entailed a waiver of the rights enumerated in subsection “c” of Ind.Code § 35-4.1-1-3 — which include the right of compulsory process.
In various respects, the majority’s analysis embodies the rationale of German v. State, supra, and that contained within the confines of this dissenting opinion. I expressly concur in the following statements from the majority opinion:
“There is nothing in the record, other than the written plea agreement itself, from which the trial court could have determined that Petitioner knew of his right to compulsory process, and we clearly held in German, that a term of the written plea agreement may not be considered an adequate substitute for the personal advisement required by the statute.
“Although we will not hold the plea hearing judge to particular language in carrying out the mandate of the statute, if its simple language is utilized, together with simple' questions, to ascertain that the defendant does, in fact, understand the meaning of each advisement and simple explanations, when necessary, defendants who plead guilty will not only be fully advised and competent to plead, but the record will also clearly reflect as much; and judicial time and effort can be conserved.
“Although the plea bargain agreement in the instant case reflects that the petitioner understood the rights therein enumerated, including the right to compulsory process, it did not come from the judge, and it did not come at the time of the waiver. In order for rights to be voluntarily waived, they must be known and understood at the time of the waiver. The waiver occurs simultaneously with the guilty plea; hence the judge must ascertain, and the record must reflect, that the defendant understands his rights and the effect of a guilty plea at that very moment. That is the critical time. What he knew or did not know at prior *1076times, including the time when he signed the plea agreement, is immaterial .... ” Majority Opinion, supra, at 1072. [Emphasis original.]
For these reasons, as well as those expressed herein, I concur in the result ultimately reached by the majority.
I do not, however, join the ambiguous indication that what a defendant “knew or did not know at prior times” might be material “as an aid to the hearing judge and to us in determining what he comprehended and understood at the time the plea is given.” That language simply defies its context. Nor do I concur in the indication that references to the plea agreement terms, either separately or collectively, might satisfy the requirement of strict compliance enunciated in Romine, German, and Tur-man. The majority’s suggestion that such reference might be satisfactory is puzzling, for, as per its own rationale and Ind.Code § 35-4.1-1-3, supra, each particular advisement of a right must come from the court Whether the advisement includes a reference to the portion of the plea agreement wherein the waiver of rights appears, it yet remains that it is the court that must directly address the defendant, inform him of the various individual rights and the waiver which occurs, and insure that the defendant’s plea is knowingly and intelligently entered. For that reason, the majority’s statements regarding references to the plea agreement are non sequiturs.
For all the reasons expressed herein, I concur in part with the majority opinion, including the result ultimately rendered.
Concurring in part, dissenting in part; and concurring in result.