This is an appeal from the denial of post conviction relief. On April 14, 1971, defendant was charged by an affidavit which alleged that he did:
“. . .. feloniously, fraudulently and knowingly, utter, publish and pass, indorse and deliver to Kenneth B. Young as true and genuine a certain false, forged counterfeit check for the payment of money . . . well knowing said check to be false, forged and counterfeit. . . .”
*412 Defendant originally plead not guilty. Later, with counsel, he appeared and indicated his desire to change his plea. The court then advised defendant at length of his rights and inquired to insure that he understood them. Next it was determined that defendant had a copy of the affidavit and had discussed it with his attorney. The affidavit was then read verbatim to the defendant by the court. Defendant was then asked:
“Mr. Terrill: You did deliver a check to the guy in the filling station?
Def.: Right, yes.
Mr. Terrill: Intending to defraud Haven’s Service Center?
Def.: Right.”
He then entered his plea of guilty.
Defendant urges that his guilty plea must be set aside as being made unknowingly and without benefit of competent counsel because during the course of the arraignment the court indicated he was charged with
forgery
and the order book entry of judgment records that he was guilty “of the offense of
forgery,
as charged in the affidavit.”
1
He urges reversal is mandated by the holding in
Sanford
v.
State
(1971),
Certainly, forgery and uttering a forged instrument are separate crimes, although it should be noted that both appear in the same paragraph of the statute. Thus, in
Beyerline
v.
State
(1897),
In
Sanford
the defendant was tried to a jury upon an affidavit which charged uttering. However, the instructions
*413
which, were given to the jury were all directed to the: crime of forgery, and forgéry was the offense upon which they returned their verdict. The Supreme Court reversed, citing
Bruce
v.
State
(1952),
Contrast those cases which involve findings on contested issues to the instant appeal. The language of the affidavit here clearly charged uttering a forged instrument, the precise crime defendant’s factual admissions indicated he had committed. A copy of the affidavit was in defendant’s possession, he had discussed it with counsel and it was read to him by the court.
While the court apparently did, during the proceedings, refer to the charge as being for “forgery”, this was not
*414
prejudicial error since the affidavit was read' verbatim' and it does not appear that' defendant was in any way . misled.
Conley
v.
State
(1972),
Similarly, the order book entry of judgment indicat“forgery”, under these facts, amounts to no more than a defect in form.
Indeed, the error appears to be precisely the kind of mistake the framers of the Indiana Rules of Procédúre contemplated when Appellate Rule 15(D) was drafted.
Accordingly, pursuant to Rules AP. 15(D) and (M), the defendant’s judgment of conviction is hereby corrected by deleting therefrom the word “Forgery” as it appears therein and by inserting in lieu thereof the words “Uttering a Forged Instrument”.
Subject to the foregoing correction of the judgment, the denial of post conviction relief is affirmed.
Hoffman, C.J. and Staton, J., concur.
Note. — Reported at