ILNews

Judges differ in stipulation matter

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed on whether a defendant pleaded guilty to the enhancement of his auto theft conviction based on his previous conviction for a similar crime.

In Emmanuel Stringer v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0806-CR-536, Judge Nancy Vaidik dissented from the majority's affirmation of Emmanuel Stringer's convictions of auto theft and operating never having received a license. Judges Patricia Riley and Carr Darden found Stringer effectively pleaded guilty to an enhancement of auto theft as a Class C felony after he stipulated the prior conviction. The state had introduced a certified copy of prior auto theft and receiving stolen parts convictions of Stringer's. His defense counsel declined to object because there was no basis for objecting to the testimony. Stringer was sentenced to 6-years executed on the auto theft as a Class C felony conviction and 60 days on the operating a vehicle never having received a license conviction.

Stringer appealed, arguing the trial court didn't properly advise him of the rights he was waiving. Citing Vanzandt v. State, 730 N.E.2d 721, 725 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), the majority ruled Stringer effectively pleaded guilty to the enhancement of auto theft to a Class C felony after his defense attorney stipulated to the prior conviction. Since he pleaded guilty, Stringer's challenge of the knowing and voluntary nature of his plea can't be made by direct appeal, but must be done through a petition for post-conviction relief, wrote Judge Riley.

In her dissent, Judge Vaidik wrote she believed Stringer stipulated to the admission of the certified copy of his prior conviction for auto theft and based on that, the trial court found him guilty of the enhancement. She would affirm the trial court, finding Stringer properly brought this direct appeal.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT