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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Great observation Smith. By my lights, speaking personally, they already have. They counted my religious perspective in a pro-life context as a symptom of mental illness and then violated all semblance of due process to banish me for life from the Indiana bar. The headline reveals the truth of the Hoosier elite's animus. Details here: Denied 2016 petition for cert (this time around): (“2016Pet”) Amicus brief 2016: (“2016Amici”) As many may recall, I was banned for five years for failing to "repent" of my religious views on life and the law when a bar examiner demanded it of me, resulting in a time out to reconsider my "clinging." The time out did not work, so now I am banned for life. Here is the five year time out order: Denied 2010 petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): (“2010Pet”) Read this quickly if you are going to read it, the elites will likely demand it be pulled down or pile comments on to bury it. (As they have buried me.)

  2. if the proabortion zealots and intolerant secularist anti-religious bigots keep on shutting down every hint of religious observance in american society, or attacking every ounce of respect that the state may have left for it, they may just break off their teeth.

  3. "drug dealers and traffickers need to be locked up". "we cannot afford just to continue to build prisons". "drug abuse is strangling many families and communities". "establishing more treatment and prevention programs will also be priorities". Seems to be what politicians have been saying for at least three decades now. If these are the most original thoughts these two have on the issues of drug trafficking and drug abuse, then we're no closer to solving the problem than we were back in the 90s when crack cocaine was the epidemic. We really need to begin demanding more original thought from those we elect to office. We also need to begin to accept that each of us is part of the solution to a problem that government cannot solve.

  4. What is with the bias exclusion of the only candidate that made sense, Rex Bell? The Democrat and Republican Party have created this problem, why on earth would anyone believe they are able to fix it without pushing government into matters it doesn't belong?

  5. This is what happens when daddy hands over a business to his moron son and thinks that everything will be ok. this bankruptcy is nothing more than Gary pulling the strings to never pay the creditors that he and his son have ripped off. they are scum and they know it.