Clarence Butler v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
53A01-1703-CR-468
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 31, 2017Background
- Clarence Butler pleaded guilty on January 26, 2017 to six felonies across four Monroe County causes (auto thefts, resisting law enforcement, possession of methamphetamine, and battery with moderate bodily injury) in exchange for dismissal of various misdemeanors and other pending cases.
- At the plea hearing the court conducted the statutory colloquy: Butler affirmed he watched the rights video, understood constitutional rights and penalties, was not coerced, and was not under the influence; the court read factual bases for the pleas and accepted them.
- The court misstated facts for one auto-theft count but Butler corrected the court and pled to the accurate charge.
- The court indicated it would release Butler on recognizance pending sentencing; the next day the State moved to revoke recognizance after Butler engaged in a six-hour jail standoff and damaged jail property.
- Butler orally moved to withdraw his guilty pleas at sentencing and later filed a verified motion asserting his pleas were not knowing and voluntary because he believed (or was promised) he would be released immediately upon pleading and that the State reneged; the trial court denied the motion and imposed an aggregate executed sentence of six years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying Butler’s motion to withdraw guilty pleas | The State: plea colloquy and record show pleas were knowingly and voluntarily made; release issue caused by an outstanding warrant in another county, not a State promise | Butler: he pled only to obtain immediate release and the State/parties promised release, so pleas were not knowing/voluntary and the State reneged | Court: Affirmed. Plea colloquy and facts show pleas were knowing and voluntary; withdrawing pleas would not correct a manifest injustice |
Key Cases Cited
- Robey v. State, 7 N.E.3d 371 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (defendants who plead guilty are generally limited in bringing direct appeals)
- Tumulty v. State, 666 N.E.2d 394 (Ind. 1996) (pleading guilty restricts ability to challenge convictions on direct appeal)
- Coomer v. State, 652 N.E.2d 60 (Ind. 1995) (trial court must examine defendant to ensure plea is knowing and voluntary)
- Spranger v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1117 (Ind. 1995) (definition of clear error standard for appellate review)
- Stewart v. State, 505 N.E.2d 61 (Ind. 1987) (defendant challenging plea must show that, had he understood consequences, he would not have pled guilty)