ILNews

Majority reverses Hopper advisement created last year

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A divided Indiana Supreme Court has reversed its 2010 decision to require that pro se defendants be informed about the dangers of pleading guilty without an attorney. Two of the justices who originally voted to create the “Hopper advisement” found themselves in the minority on the high court’s decision on rehearing.

In September 2010, Justices Robert Rucker, Frank Sullivan and Theodore Boehm created the “Hopper requirement” – named after defendant David Hopper – which held that trial courts must be advised of the dangers of going to trial or pleading guilty without representation as required by Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). The majority in the original decision noted the new advisement – which was prospectively applied – would require minimal additional time or effort at the initial hearing and wouldn’t impose a significant burden on the judicial process. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Justice Brent Dickson dissented, questioning how many people would decide not to plead guilty based on the advisement or how many repeat offenders would avoid penalties because the warning wasn’t given.

But since that 2010 ruling, Boehm has retired and been replaced by Justice Steven David, and today the high court reversed its earlier decision on a rehearing petition requested by the state. Shepard, David and Dickson made up the majority in the latest opinion. The majority affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief for Hopper – who in 2005 decided to plead guilty to a driving while intoxicated charge after waiving his right to counsel. The majority denied Hopper’s argument and overturned their earlier decision.

“While we do not doubt the value of the Hopper advisement’s language in particular stages of particular cases with particular defendants, the notion that such language should be mandatory in all stages of all cases with all defendants is misplaced,” wrote Shepard in David Hopper v. State of Indiana, No. 13S01-1007-PC-399.

Rucker and Sullivan dissented, with Rucker writing that the state’s petition for rehearing never should have been granted because the state advanced no new arguments. Rucker also couldn’t understand why the majority believes it is a bad idea to provide pro se – and likely indigent – defendants with the advisement outlined in the original Supreme Court decision: “an attorney is usually more experienced in plea negotiations and better able to identify and evaluate any potential defenses and evidentiary or procedural problems in the prosecution’s case.”

“I do not disagree that a Hopper advisement is not necessarily required by the Sixth Amendment or by the Indiana Constitution,” he wrote. “Nor do I advocate that the lack of an advisement would automatically result in reversal of a defendant’s conviction. But the advantages of giving such an advisement, especially at the initial hearing stage of the proceedings, far outweigh any disadvantages of doing so.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT