Hopper v. State
957 N.E.2d 613
| Ind. | 2011Background
- Hopper challenged 2005 OWI conviction seeking post-conviction relief on invalid waiver of counsel before pro se; prior opinion required Faretta advisement and noting attorney’s typical advantage in plea negotiations.
- Hopper signed a Waiver of Attorney at an initial hearing; pled guilty after plea negotiations conduct.
- Court granted rehearing to address advisements and role of Hopper advisement in plea negotiations.
- Court previously held Faretta advisement not constitutionally required but advisable; decided to apply totality-of-circumstances evaluation.
- On rehearing, Court affirmed that Hopper’s waiver was voluntary and intelligent; Hopper advisement not per se required across all cases.
- Key issue remains how to evaluate advisements at different stages, with emphasis on totality of the circumstances over a rigid per se rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hopper’s waiver required a mandatory advisement | Hopper argues advisement about counsel in plea bargaining required | State argues advisement not mandatory; totality matters | Not per se required; totality-of-circumstances governs |
| Whether plea negotiations constitute a critical stage requiring counsel | Plea negotiations are critical and require counsel absent valid waiver | Plea bargaining not a critical stage like trial; Tovar controls | Plea negotiations not automatically requiring counsel; guided by Tovar and totality approach |
| Whether Hopper’s guilty plea colloquy complied with Indiana law | Waiver and understanding of rights questionable given prior form | Colloquy complied with Ind. Code §§ 35-35-1-2 to -3 and totality | Colloquy satisfied statutory requirements; waiver deemed voluntary and intelligent |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (U.S. 2004) (affirms limited advisements for uncounseled pleas; not mandatory across all stages)
- Hood v. State, 546 N.E.2d 847 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (prosecutor’s threats to induce plea with no counsel may taint waiver)
- Sedberry v. State, 610 N.E.2d 284 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (case-specific inquiry; no rigid warnings required for pleas)
- Eaton v. State, 894 N.E.2d 213 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (treatment of waivers at plea stages; informs Sedberry line)
- White v. State, 497 N.E.2d 893 (Ind. 1986) (plea hearings best under Indiana statute; informs voluntariness standard)
- Leonard v. State, 579 N.E.2d 1294 (Ind. 1991) (rejects rigid waiver guidelines; emphasizes case-specific factors)
- Dowell v. State, 557 N.E.2d 1063 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (non-mandatory advisements; part of waiver analysis)