ILNews

Judges order new PCR hearing on guilty plea issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed in part the denial of a man’s pro se petition for post-conviction relief, holding the post-conviction court’s findings didn’t support its rejection of the man’s claim his plea was illusory or involuntary.

Ricky Graham pleaded guilty to dealing in a narcotic drug as a Class B felony in exchange for the dismissal of other charges, including a habitual-offender charge. Graham argued that his plea was illusory and involuntary because it was motivated by the improper threat of a 30-year habitual-offender enhancement. The state conceded on appeal his dealing charge couldn’t have been enhanced under the general habitual-offender statute.

Graham also challenged whether there was a sufficient factual basis for his guilty plea and whether he received effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.

In Ricky E. Graham v. State of Indiana, No. 22A01-1008-PC-392, the appellate judges address several procedural issues before turning to the merits of the case. They noted the state faulted Graham for not introducing the record related to his trial and guilty plea at the PCR hearing in support of his claims. But the trial court didn’t introduce any of the records Graham brought and said they could get the transcripts from the Superior Court records.

“It is true that Graham did not insist that the materials he brought to the hearing be introduced into evidence. Still, if a party in a PCR proceeding provides the original trial record (or a part thereof) to the PCR court, the PCR court should proactively ensure that the record is officially entered into evidence as an exhibit, so that the trial record is transmitted to this court in the event of an appeal and to avoid claims of waiver for failing to submit the trial record to the PCR court,” wrote Judge Michael Barnes. “Otherwise, there is the danger of converting a procedural technicality into a trap for unsuspecting litigants, which we emphatically discourage.”

Graham also alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel and it was up to the PCR court to issue any subpoenas on his behalf. The judges declined to address his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim because they ultimately remanded for further proceedings.

The judges affirmed there was a sufficient factual basis for Graham’s guilty plea and that he didn’t receive ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. But the appellate court remanded his case to the PCR court on the issue of whether his guilty plea was illusory and involuntary. The Court of Appeals relied on Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. 2001), and Willoughby v. State, 792 N.E.2d 560, 564 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), to hold that the standard they set out dealing with ineffective assistance of counsel claims is equally applicable to straightforward claims of an involuntary or illusory plea, wrote Judge Barnes.

“Ultimately, there is evidence here that the trial court itself advised Graham at the guilty plea hearing that he was facing a possible maximum fifty-year sentence if he did not plead guilty. Such an advisement arguably would overshadow any advice Graham had received from trial counsel regarding the validity of the habitual offender enhancement,” wrote the judge.

The judges found the PCR court’s findings don’t support its rejection of Graham’s claim his plea was illusory or involuntary. They remanded for consideration of whether there exist facts that meet the Segura standard for setting aside a guilty plea based on the clearly improper threat of a habitual-offender sentence enhancement. Also on remand, the PCR should consider the effectiveness of his trial counsel should Graham resubmit his subpoena request for his trial counsel to appear at the new hearing.
 

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