Anthony Williams appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm.
FACTS
On June 27, 1975 Williams pled guilty to two counts of theft under $100
ISSUES
Williams claims the guilty plea court failed to advise him
1) of his right to a public and speedy trial;
2) of the minimum and maximum penalties;
3) the court was not a party to the plea agreement and was not bound by it;
4) of the possibility of consecutive sentences and
5) his prior convictions could be used to enhance his sentences.
In addition, he claims there was an inadequate factual basis for his plea of guilty to one of the theft charges.
Our standard of review of Williams's claim is that recently enunciated by our supreme court in White v. State (1986), Ind.,
"A petitioner who claims that his plea was involuntary and unintelligent but can only establish that the trial judge failed to give an advisement in accordance with § 85-85-1-2 has not met his burden of proof. He needs to plead specific facts from which a finder of fact could conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that the trial judge's failure to make a full inquiry in accordance with § 85-85-1-2(a) rendered his decision involuntary or unintelligent. Of course, unless the record reveals that the defendant knew or was advised at the time of his plea that he was waiving his right to a jury trial, his right of confrontation and his right against self-incrimination, Boykin [v. Alabama,395 U.S. 238 ,89 S.Ct. 1709 ,23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969)] will require that his conviction be vacated."
In deciding a claim a plea was not made voluntarily and intelligently, "we will review all the evidence before the [post-conviction] court including testimony given at the post-conviction trial, the transcript of the petitioner's original sentencing, and any plea agreements or other exhibits which are part of the record." White,
The guilty plea court did not comply with I1.C. § 85-4.1-1-3, the applicable advisement statute, in that it omitted the advisements alleged in Williams's petition, and thus the guilty plea court erred. However, reviewing the entire record,
The post-conviction relief court also properly concluded Williams failed to prove he was prejudiced by the guilty plea court's failure to advise him concerning the possibility of consecutive sentences or the possibility of increased sentences due to prior convictions. Williams did not show he was prejudiced by any lack of knowledge, nor
Sentences must be served concurrently in the absence of a statute specifically authorizing consecutive sentencing. Baromich v. State (1969),
Finally, Williams asserts his guilty plea to one charge was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because he did not remember the events on which the crime was based and, therefore, there was an inadequate factual basis for his plea.
In Gibson v. State (1986), Ind.,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
. Ind.Code Aun. § 35-17-5-3 (Burns 1975); see also Ind.Code Ann. § 35-17-5-12 (Burns 1975) (penalty).
. Williams argues the plea agreement is not part of the record because it was not file marked. His argument fails because the guilty plea judge specifically ordered the plea agreement incorporated within the transcript of the guilty plea proceedings, and thus it was properly the subject of judicial notice by the post-conviction court. There is also no merit to Williams's claim the plea agreement is not part of the record because the day of the month it was executed has apparently been changed. It does appear the figure "16" has been overwritten with the figure "27". However, a reasonable explanation appears in the record in that the guilty plea hearing was continued from June 16, 1975 to June 27, 1975. In any event, a mere writeover, unaccompanied by any claim of fraud, etc. does not invalidate the plea agreement. Thus, the post-conviction hearing court could properly look to the written agreement to determine whether Williams was aware of the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty.
. Further, Williams's Request for Speedy Trial, filed October 18, 1974, evidences his knowledge of his right to a speedy trial.
. To the extent Williams attempts to also argue an inadequate factual basis relating to the events giving rise to the theft charge we direct his attention to the following excerpt from the record: .
"COURT: So you're telling me that in each case that you stole property of a hundred dollars or less from each one of the people who is named, is that right?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir."
Record at 121.
"COURT: ... why don't you do the best you can on the summary.
MR. JOEST: Yes, Your Honor. With regard to CR 74-251D, on September 10, 1974, Harold V. Heiden was robbed of $30 cash belonging to the Kentucky Control Life Insurance Company and $15 of his personal money by a negro male at 3062 North New Jersey Street, Indianapolis, Marion County. The subject had his hand in his pocket as though he had a gun. On September 11, 1974, the victim selected a photograph of Anthony Wil-Hams as the subject that had robbed him. On September 18, 1974, the victim positively identified Williams in person as the subject that robbed him."
Record at 131-132.
"MR. SELLS: As to the charge of robbery involving Mr. Hilden-Harold Heiden. That's the one where there's question concerning consciousness of guilt. We neither affirm or deny. But he wants to enter a plea of guilty. He's doing it freely and voluntarily and he feels that it's in his best interests, and we would concede that there is sufficient evidence to-for the State to show that Mr. Williams committed the crime.
COURT: Do you agree with that? Say yes or no, please.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
COURT: Okay. So far as you know, what the prosecutor said happened, did happen, right?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes."
Record at 134.