Graham v. State
941 N.E.2d 1091
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Graham appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief petition after pleading guilty to Class B felony dealing in a narcotic drug; the State dismissed a habitual offender enhancement in exchange for the plea; the trial court sentenced him to 20 years with aggravating factors and no mitigators; Graham claimed ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and that his guilty plea was illusory or involuntary due to threats of habitual offender enhancement; the PCR court held no relief on most claims but remanded for illusory plea issues; the Court of Appeals partially affirms and remands for further proceedings on the illusory plea issue; Graham represented himself at PCR and sought trial counsel attendance via subpoena; record issues at PCR and evidentiary handling are discussed; on remand, trial counsel’s attendance may be reconsidered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Factual basis for guilty plea | Graham argues the basis was insufficient | Graham admits some facts; insufficient basis for plea | Factual basis found sufficient for plea under accomplice theory |
| Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel | Appeal failed to raise withdrawal of plea issue | Withdrawal issue may be non-meritorious; decisions are strategic | Appellate counsel not ineffective for not raising withdrawal issue on direct appeal |
| Illusory or involuntary guilty plea | Graham claims habitual offender threat coerced plea | No clear finding of coercion; standard under Segura applied | Remanded for further PCR proceedings to address Segura standard; prior findings insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhoades v. State, 675 N.E.2d 698 (Ind. 1996) (factual basis for guilty plea may be minimal evidence and is presumptively correct)
- Bland v. State, 708 N.E.2d 880 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999) (withdrawal of guilty plea requires manifest injustice showing)
- Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. 2001) (prevailed standard for penal-consequence advice; materiality requires facts showing likelihood of going to trial if properly advised)
- Willoughby v. State, 792 N.E.2d 560 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003) (applies Segura standard to ineffective assistance and involuntary plea claims)
- Nash v. State, 429 N.E.2d 666 (Ind.Ct.App. 1981) (illusory plea when habitual-offender threat significantly influenced plea)
- Cross v. State, 521 N.E.2d 360 (Ind.Ct.App. 1988) (abrogated by later decisions; dialogue required if innocence asserted before sentencing)