Donald E. Morris v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
91A02-1606-CR-1363
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 15, 2017Background
- Donald E. Morris, a 62‑year‑old disabled Vietnam veteran with PTSD and methamphetamine addiction, was charged with Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine after a controlled buy of 3.09 grams.
- Morris sought and completed inpatient treatment after an unsuccessful outpatient attempt and a suicide attempt.
- On July 17, 2015, Morris entered a written plea agreement pleading guilty in exchange for the minimum 20‑year sentence; the State made no sentencing recommendation and placement was left to the court.
- Paragraph 4 of the plea explicitly waived Morris’s right to appeal any sentence within the plea range and waived the right to challenge the sentence as erroneous.
- The trial court accepted the plea and on May 13, 2016 sentenced Morris to the 20‑year minimum: 10 years executed in the Department of Correction and 10 years on home detention.
- Morris appealed, arguing his sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). The State contended he waived appellate review of his sentence in the plea agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morris may challenge his sentence on appeal as inappropriate under Rule 7(B) despite his plea waiver | Morris contends the sentence is inappropriate given the offense and his character | State argues Morris knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence in the written plea agreement | Court held Morris waived his right to appeal; waiver was knowing and voluntary and the sentence fell within the plea terms |
Key Cases Cited
- Creech v. State, 887 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. 2008) (defendant may waive appellate review of sentence in a written plea if waiver is knowing and voluntary)
- Bowling v. State, 960 N.E.2d 837 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (failure of trial court to misadvise defendant about right to appeal strengthens validity of a clear written waiver)
- Morris v. State, 985 N.E.2d 364 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (interpretation of plea‑waiver language; ambiguous waiver of "erroneous" challenges may not cover Rule 7(B) challenges)