Dunn v. State
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 416
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Dunn was charged with multiple felonies and sought an expedited change-of-plea before surrendering to federal authorities.
- The State (signed by Deputy Prosecutor Kevin E. Kelly) and Dunn entered a plea agreement: Dunn pleaded guilty to theft; other charges were to be dismissed; Kelly’s affidavit stated the victim had been notified of plea discussions.
- The trial court accepted the plea and found Dunn guilty; sentencing was scheduled for a later date.
- On the morning of sentencing, a different deputy prosecutor (Timothy Baldwin) moved to withdraw the plea, asserting the State never intended to offer the plea and alleging the victim had not been notified.
- The trial court granted the State’s motion to withdraw the plea based on the victim-notification issue and concerns about protecting the victim’s constitutional rights.
- Dunn appealed; the majority reversed, holding the court erred by allowing withdrawal after it had accepted the plea; one judge dissented, emphasizing victims’ constitutional rights and approving withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Dunn) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prosecutor/state may withdraw a plea agreement after the court has accepted it but before sentencing | The plea was a "mistake in fact" and the State never intended to offer it; victim was not notified, so withdrawal is justified | The State’s agents miscommunicated; the plea was validly offered and accepted, and the State invited any error by affidavit that the victim was notified | Reversed: once court accepted the plea, it was bound by its terms under I.C. § 35-35-3-3(e); withdrawal after acceptance was improper absent defendant’s breach or other narrow exceptions |
| Whether lack of victim notification justified withdrawal of a court-accepted plea | Victim’s constitutional rights (Art. 1 § 13(b)) were violated because the victim was not notified or consulted, warranting withdrawal | Notification was represented in the prosecutor’s affidavit at the plea hearing; any error was invited by the State’s prior representation | Court held withdrawal based on late assertion of non-notification was improper because the State’s prior affidavit represented notification; the State cannot invite error and then seek relief |
| Whether exceptions (e.g., defendant’s post-acceptance misconduct) permit revocation | N/A — State relied on “mistake” and victim-notification, not defendant misconduct | No misconduct by Dunn; no innocence claim or breach of plea terms | Court noted limited exceptions (e.g., defendant claims innocence or violates plea condition) did not apply here |
| Standard of review for plea-withdrawal decision | N/A | N/A | Abuse of discretion standard; reversal appropriate because trial court’s decision was clearly against facts and law presented |
Key Cases Cited
- Badger v. State, 637 N.E.2d 800 (Ind. 1994) (withdrawal of plea reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386 (Ind. 1997) (standard for reversal for abuse of discretion)
- Stone v. State, 27 N.E.3d 341 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (court bound by terms after accepting plea)
- Epperson v. State, 530 N.E.2d 743 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (plea agreements treated like contracts; due process safeguards required)
- Beech v. State, 702 N.E.2d 1132 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (example of allowed revocation where defendant’s conduct warranted it)
- Campbell v. State, 17 N.E.3d 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (plea revoked as defendant failed to comply with express plea condition)
- Breunig v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946 (Ind. 2014) (party may not seek relief from an error it invited)
- Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) (prosecutor’s role and duties; cited in dissent on separation of victim and prosecutorial interests)