*1 207 сonviction or convictions." 1.0. 85- 35-1-2(a)(8). I take it from the majority REID, Appellant Michael opinion that it is now settled pro- that this requires vision provided information be v. convictions can be used to en- Indiana, Appellee STATE оf beyond hance a sentence the presumptive sentence, and is not confined to the situa- tion where a conviction can result in a sentence in excess of the provid- maximum
ed for in the criminal statute. Cf. Johnson
State, (1988),Ind.,
(Pivar-
nik and dissenting). I certainly join Rehearing in the majority opinion in that construction. made his on
April 22, 1981. The reсent decision of this court White v. State 898, aside,
N.E.2d the guilty statute
governing appellant's plea commanded that
the court "... not from the defendant without first address- * * * (d) the defendant and infоrming * * *
him of any possible increased sen-
tence by reason of the fact of a
conviction or convictions ...". As I under- case,
stand the White it does not declare provision unconstitutional or at
odds with a court; rule of this
therefore it is the responsibility of this
court to enforce that statute even we
should believe that the statute is unwise or
too productive burdensome or of undesir-
able results. IAs now understand the
application being now made of the White
holding, it is that there will be no enforce-
ment unless the prove defendant can
he would pleaded not have guilty if there
had been compliance with the statute. In
my mind this is tantamount to simply over-
riding the letter of the statute and its be- spirit.
neficent I therefore dissent. Yaser, Deputy
Vickie Atty. Gen., E. Pearson Michael Wordеn, Gene Deputy Atty. Gen., Indi- anapolis,
Defendant/Petitioner ap- Michael Reid peals from the denial of re- *2 plea to establish voluntary 4, 1981, that his was not lief. On November he entered a plea guilty attempted voluntary of to man- intelligent, may and he petition. file a new slaughter pursuant plea agree- to a written given
ment
the dеfendant was
an
GIVAN, C.J., and PIVARNIK and
(15) years
executed sentence of fiteen
im-
SHEPARD, JJ., concur.
prisonment.
plea
He nоw contends that his
DeBRULER,
J.,
opinion.
dissents with
guilty
voluntarily
of
not entered
was
and
intelligently because the trial court failed
DeBRULER, Justice, dissenting.
him, pursuant
to advise
to Ind.Code 85-
§
appellant's
At
time of
plea
guilty
the
of
35-1-2,
possible
in
of the
increase
sentence
4, 1981,
receiving
on November
the court
by
reason of
conviction.
plea
govеrned
the
by
was
a statute which
appealing
post-con-
When
the denial of a
required the
personally
сourt to
address
petition,
petitioner
viction
the
has the bur-
eriminal defendants and to inform them "of
proof
den of
and stands in the shoes of one
any possible
by
increased sentence
reason
negative
appealing
judgment.
from a
The
of the fact of
conviction or convie-
post-conviction
judge
trial court is thе sole
tions,
85-4.1-1-3(d)
..".
IC.
[amended
weight
of the
of the
and the credi-
evidence
85-35-1-2,
and recodified at Ind.Code
ef-
bility of witnеsses. We will reverse the
September
fective
The trial court
1982]
judgment
being contrary
only
to law
as
was
in simple
unequivocal
commanded
and
when the evidence is without conflict and
language
accept
plea
not to
of
exclusively
contrary
leads
to a conclusion
until
accomplished.
that chore was
pоst-conviction
to that reached
the
trial
19, 1984, appellant
March
filed his
Young
court.
v. State
post-conviсtion petition seeking to with-
N.E.2d 70.
plea
guilty.
post-convic-
draw his
of
The
presented
post-con-
The evidenсe
at the
specifically
tion court found
as a matter of
hearing
transcript
viction
included a
of the
that the
petition-
fact
court had not advised
sentencing hearing
plea
and the written
required by
quoted provi-
еr as
agreement.
testimony
presented
No
was
sion, and that
the information was not
whether the
had been
plea agreement.
the
within
The
crime,
of a
nor
convicted
was there
post-conviction court neverthеless
denied
any
suggesting
evidence whatsoever
post-conviction
right
relief because the
there was a causal link between the omit-
receive information about the manner in
ted advisement and the decision tо enter a
impact
which
convictions
the sentenc-
guilty.
proof
The
of
as to
burden
ing
right
statutory
decision was a
and not a
upon
petitioner.
these matters rests
right,.
governing
constitutional
The
stat-
Ind.,
(1986),
trary to our constitutions or is
in nature contrary existing to an rule
of this court. This court has no such au-
thority. *3 MERRIWEATHER,
Emmett Indiana,
STATE Appellee 28,
Rehearing 18, Ranucei,
Rick Deputy Pearson, Gen., E. Atty. Kenneth Williams, P. Deputy Gen., Atty. Indianapo- lis, May the trial court accepted
petitioner Emmett Merriweather's robbery, a class B felony, pursu- ant to a agreement (15) State recommended a fifteen year sentence for robbery agreed forego prosеcution for post-convie- murder. In his proceeding, tion sought to vacate the alleged because of failures of the trial guilty plea court's ad- visements following: (A) that the court party was not a to and not bound agreement; (B) that there was a possibility of an
aggravated sentence due to crimes; and,