ILNews

Supreme Court takes closer reading of precedent in affirming post-conviction relief

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man’s 2002 guilty plea to a habitual traffic violator offense will be set aside after the Indiana Supreme Court held his 1989 conviction in Fayette County constituted a material error.
 
Russell Oney pleaded guilty in Marion Superior Court in 2002 to operating a vehicle while suspended as a HTV, a Class D felony. His designation as a HTV arose from his three operating a vehicle while intoxicated convictions.

Eight years after his guilty plea, Oney challenged his 1989 OWI conviction, alleging impropriety of the trial judge and violation of his right to counsel. The state did not oppose Oney’s petition for post-conviction relief and even entered into a joined “Agreed Entry of Post-Conviction Relief.”

The post-conviction court vacated the 1989 OWI conviction. Then Oney filed a motion to set aside his 2002 guilty plea. The trial court granted the motion, but the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed.

In arguing against the trial court’s ruling, the state asserted granting Oney’s motion contravened the precedent of the Supreme Court set forth in State v. Starks, 816 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 2004). In that case, the Supreme Court held despite Starks’ guilty plea being set aside, he was not entitled to post-conviction relief.

Writing for the court, Justice Robert Rucker pointed out Starks was not entitled to post-conviction relief because the underlying OWI offense was vacated because of a procedural error.  

“But Starks cannot be read as standing for the proposition that the possibility of relief is forever foreclosed,” Rucker wrote. “Instead the Court declared: ‘[Although] it is not a sufficient basis for relief that the underlying offense has been set aside on procedural grounds’ however ‘if the person successfully demonstrates either to the BMV or to the court…that a ‘material error’ has occurred then the person is afforded the opportunity to pursue post-conviction relief.’”

In State of Indiana v. Russell Oney, 49A05-1212-CR-668, the Supreme Court found the Fayette County judge’s acceptance of the 1989 plea was a material error. While Oney initially maintained his innocence, he accepted the plea after repeatedly being urged by  the judge to do so.

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, ruling the guilty plea and judgment conviction were voidable on the basis the underlying offense was vacated.


 

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