ILNews

Man can't challenge motion after guilty plea

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A defendant who pleaded guilty to a drug charge can no longer challenge the trial court denial of his pretrial motion to suppress, affirmed the Indiana Court of Appeals today.

Tommy D. Alvey challenged the trial court order denying his pretrial motion to suppress following a "conditional guilty plea" in which he and the state agreed he had reserved his right to appeal the court's order.

Alvey was arrested on various drug charges and carrying a handgun without a license, and he agreed to plead guilty to dealing methamphetamine and carrying a handgun without a license. Alvey appealed the trial court denial of his pretrial motion to suppress evidence after the court sentenced him.

In Tommy D. Alvey v. State of Indiana, No. 82A01-0804-CR-164, the appellate court examined previous rulings by the Court of Appeals on the issue of whether a defendant can challenge a pretrial motion after pleading guilty. The appellate court relied heavily on the Indiana Supreme Court's Nov. 12 opinion in Norris v. State, No. 43S03-0807-CR-379, to rule that an evidentiary challenge after pleading guilty isn't permissible, wrote Judge Edward Najam.

On appeal, Alvey didn't challenge whether his guilty plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, or whether the court accepted his plea over a claim of innocence, which may be a strategic decision by his counsel, wrote the judge.

"Thus, Alvey's plea forecloses his right to challenge the pretrial motion to suppress, and we must affirm the trial court's entry of judgment of conviction against Alvey," wrote Judge Najam.

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT