ILNews

S.C. grants transfer on plea agreement issue

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court will decide in a case of first impression whether a criminal defendant can waive the right to appeal in a plea agreement. The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on this issue twice this year and decided defendants can waive the right to a direct appeal of a sentence.

The Supreme Court granted transfer Thursday for Timothy Ray Creech v. State of Indiana (NFP), 35A02-0612-CR-1140. Creech pleaded guilty to child molestation and later appealed his six-year sentence. During his guilty plea, Creech stated he understood he has the right to appeal his sentence if there is an open plea, but he waived the right to appeal his sentence as long as the Judge "sentences me within the terms of my plea agreement." The court sentenced Creech to the maximum under the plea agreement.

As the Court of Appeals noted in another case dealing with the same issue, Santiago Perez v. State of Indiana, 866 N.E.2d 817 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), there are no Indiana decisions addressing an express waiver of the right to a direct appeal as part of a plea bargain agreement. In Perez, the Court of Appeals held that a defendant may in a plea agreement waive his right to direct appeal of his sentence because plea agreements are contractual in nature and bind the defendant, state, and trial court.

In Creech, the Court of Appeals referenced Perez in ruling Creech waived his right to a direct appeal because he expressly agreed to do so in his plea agreement.
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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT