*1 regular judge to authority from the had no authority a court officer at trial to the appealable order waives upon Gad- judgment a final and sentence enter render is therefore entitled it die's Gaddie conclude that appeal. We issue for the sentence reviewing improper authority committed lacks no which he stands grounds where appeal on these nullity. issue was and is made that the showing has been the review- properly preserved. grounds of deny relief on
ing court should
waiver. Here, that MeMichel the record reveals
Id. object master commissioner when the at the conclusion
announced take the matter hearing that he would ruling make a no later advisement and on the Relation of of Indiana Similarly, STATE appellant than next afternoon. Anthony WOODFORD, Norman objection to the master com- made no Gaddie Relator, accepting missioner's sentencing hearing. at his evidence v. chal- neither McMichel nor Gaddie Because SUPERIOR COURT The MARION lenged authority of the court officers Gifford, Patricia J. the Honorable in the trial courts presiding over their cases Thereof, Judge Respondents. ap- preserve the issue for properly so as to they seek on is denied peal, the relief No. 49S00-9503-OR-316. grounds of waiver. of Indiana. Conclusion Sept. were decided Both McMichel and Gaddie Although Floyd. in before our decision Floyd, in we now
disapproved McMichel transfer, petitions to vacate
grant the State's Appeals in both of the Court of
the decisions State,
McMichel v. State and Gaddie 11(B)(3), and affirm the
Ind.Appellate Rule in each case.
trial courts C.J.,
SHEPARD, and DICKSON and
SELBY, JJ., concur. dissents dissent stated For the reasons I
Floyd attempted appeal dismiss the case, and reverse the denial
McMichel remedy in the Gaddie case. case, the court commission-
In the MceMichel authority of kind from
er had no appealable
regular judge to make a final judgment
judgment. Such commissioner's appealable. authority and is not
totally lacks case, court commissioner the Gaddie
64
recommended a life
agreed
sentence.
It also
remaining charges
arising out
robbery
the Hook's
and dismiss another
robbery
armed
charge stemming from a
hold-up at a White Castle restaurant.
In
petitioned
1982 Woodford
challenging the voluntariness of
guilty plea
adequacy
and the
of the factu-
al
supporting
basis
plea.
The trial court
denied the
based on laches. We
reversed that
finding,
v. State
Woodford
(1985), Ind.,
563,
and also noted
purposes
for of remand that
tran-
"the
seript
hearing includes
substantial evidence from which
guilty
plea court could have concluded that Peti-
tioner and
accomplice
together
acted
throughout
robbery,
although the record
does contain conclusive evidence that
it was
accomplice
police
who killed the
officer."
Id. at 565.
transcript
contained Wood-
description
ford's
participation
crime,
including
taking
aim at Officer
Manly.
It also
Manly
demonstrated that
gun
killed with a
by Woodford,
owned
proba-
bly actually
fired
accomplice.
While Woodford's
re
lief
pending
in the trial court on
Kiefer,
J. Richard
Indianapolis, for relator.
remand, we issued our decision in White v.
Newman,
Marion
Prosecu-
State
It affect
tor,
Massa,
Mark
Counsel,
S.
Chief
Indianap-
ed
Woodford's claim
redefining the facts
olis,
respondents.
pleaded
to be
proved
and
in a
challenge
guilty
plea.
a
The trial court
SHEPARD, Chief Justice.
applied the White standard to the evidence
Relator Norman
requested
Woodford
that
submitted at
the earlier
on Wood-
we issue a writ of
directing
mandate
ford's
and denied relief.
In affirm
Marion
Court to take
ing
judgment,
that
impact
noted White's
over
remarking
"that a
so
relief, We conclude that the trial court cor-
situated should be entitled to file a new
rectly declined to entertain
be-
he 'has
other
basis
cause Woodford did
comply
with Post-
establish that his
Conviction Rule
and
(1989),
Woodford
Ind.,
1355,
(quoting
1358
1974,
In December
Woodford and Robbie
906).
497 N.E.2d at
This observation is the
Allen
up
Woods held
a
Drug
Hook's
Store at
heart of
request
for a writ of
gun point.
ensued,
the shoot-out
mandamus.
both Woods and Officer
Manly
Ronald
died.
The State filed multiple charges
against
sequence
The current
began
events
at
Woodford. Woodford
lawyers
and his
bar-
the end of
issues are
gained
prosecutor,
with the
finally agreeing
complicated by
change
prosecutors.
a
guilty
murder- November
Woodford filed a new
ing
police
during
officer
robbery.
challenging his
forego
State
penalty
the death
28th,
outgoing
clear, absolute,
imperative
"perform a
Jeffrey Modisett and Woodford's
duty imposed by
City
ex
agreement
pro-
law." State
rel.
lawyer
submitted
South Bend Court of
conclusions of law
posed findings of fact and
246. The
Ind.
to set aside the life sentence
asking the court
fifty years with ten
impose a sentence of
us,
therefore,
is the
principal
*3
25-34.)
(R.
probation.
what,
years suspended
any, legal
to
if
determination of
30, the Prosecutor answered
Superior
by
our
imposed
on the
Court
reso-
nearly all
petition by admitting
Woodford's
appeal
first
lution of the
Woodford's
court,
by
allegations.
approved
If
proceeding.
would have
of the transaction
the net result
appeal
When we decided Woodford's
prison.
immediate release
been
did not
"[Woodford]
we held
9, 1995,
January
the trial court struck
plead
prove specific
or
facts from which
sponte for failure to
sua
Woodford's
by
preponder
of fact could conclude
finder
petition un-
to file a successive
obtain leave
sentencing
ance of the evidence that
1(12).
Rule
Amend-
der Post-Conviction
inquiry
a full
in ac
judge's failure to make
January
this
effective
ments to
rendered his deci
cordance with the statute
desiring
pursue succes-
require prisoners
to
involuntary
unintelligent."
or
sion
relief
to obtain
sive
add that
N.E.2d at 1358. We went on to
Supreme
of either
Court or
leave
"should be entitled" to file new
Appeals
filing in a trial court.
before
Court
upon
"has
other basis
which
he
following day,
voluntary
that his
was not
to establish
moved to amend the State's answer
Newman
1358, quoting
intelligent."
Id. at
denying
allegations and rais-
most of the
at 906.1
He also
ing various affirmative defenses.
petition.
to
That
was written at a time when
appeared
resist
statement
permitted prisoners to file succes-
our rules
for the writ
Woodford bases
petitions virtually
post-conviction relief
sive
mandamus on two contentions:
limitation. Woodford's "entitlement"
without
expressly au-
1.
Court
nothing
than an invitation to file
more
post-conviction re-
his successive
thorized
complied
petition-one
with
another
challenging
the voluntariness
lef
sum,
special exemption from it.
not a
guilty plea in our denial of relief on
impose a
holding
in that
petition,
Superior
with re-
special duty on the
Court
trial court's
2. That
petition for
spect
to Woodford's eventual
second
is manda-
hear Woodford's
post-conviction relief.
tory
the law of the case.
clearly burdened
Although Woodford was
argument
is built on the
second
Petitioner's
specific
he
having
facts before
with
ren-
resolution of the first
first. Our
merits,
to a full
on the
was entitled
second issue moot.
ders the
filing
him
nothing prevented
ex
The writ of mandamus
is an
very
day.
Wood-
petition the
next
traordinary remedy, equitable in nature and
years
than five
before
ford waited more
with disfavor. State ex rel. Cross
viewed
petition, and the rules of
his next
(1979)
Superior
272 Ind.
Lake
Court
changed in the interim.
procedure
Mandamus does
126.
Rule
Post-Conviction
has a "clear and
When we amended
lie unless the relator
relief,"
appellate courts
require
12 to
leave of the
unquestioned right
State ex rel.
petition filing a successive
Hospital
General
v. Warrick Circuit
Gibson
240, 243,
court,
excep-
247 Ind.
applied without
the amendment
655, 657,
tion to all
Woodford's
respondent
court failed to
8-11,
are
pleading
Record at
November 1994
Woodford has done little
1.
presented
virtually
in his
to the claims
"any
to establish that his
identical
other basis
petition.
clearly scope comes within the of this rule. tions filed in right by exercise of the Nothing in affirming we held the denial of members of this class are not second or Woodford's first peti- petitions subject regulation by tion "froze" the 1989 rules for him this Court or the Court of exempted compliance Woodford from PCR therefore any procedural rules in writ. effect at the time he
would file. The Court dismissed second SULLIVAN, Justice, dissenting. because he had not first obtained leave to really What going that, inon fully this case is file. The dismissal accorded with the law, and years thus no breach occurred. after of negotiating with the Marion office, Prosecutor's Woodford and the *4 before, As we have observed "[ilt is Prosecutor to a reduction in Wood- well settled that prohi writs of mandate and ford's sentence prison from life in forty only bition will be issued where the trial years. plea agreement A to that effect duty has an absolute to act or refrain (structured for reasons peti as a acting." State ex rel. Harris v. Scott relief) tion for was filed with Circuit Court the trial question court. There is no that the added). (emphasis extraordinary This trial court would have had discretion to ac remedy is not available where the matter is cept reject agreement. Petty within the discretion of the trial court. (1989),Ind., But, citing Because the trial court had no absolute requiring new rule appellate pre-approy consider Woodford's al for post- for a writ of mandate should be denied. relief, deny op reasons, For these we denied Woodford's portunity to have the trial court rule on the petition for a writ of mandamus. agreement. I believe that the language in our earlier SELBY, JJ., DICKSON and concur. opinion in Woodford's case was sufficient to DeBRULER, J., separate dissents with give him exemption application Furthermore, the new rule. point the whole of the new in non-capital cases is to SULLIVAN, J., dissents with weed out frivolous opinion in which joins. thereby conserving prosecutorial, court, and, ultimately, appellate court resources. unique policy Woodford is a member of is in no class of fur- when, here, petitioners. thered By reason of a law, shift conviction relief this class on acts with cooperation the full subjected prosecutor. legal to a standard which had not existed deprivation on trial. This was consis the writ. tent with promise remedy due § course of art. Indiana Constitu DeBRULER, J., joins. tion, promise equal privileges citizens, immunities to all § art. be
cause this granted the members of this right
class the to return to the trial court and
to file a new petition to which standard applied. would be White v. State opinion, right of the members of unique class to now file under the new
legal standard has been declared Court, manifest; peti