Preview:

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE: JOHN SMITH Miami Correctional Facility Bunker Hill, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana RICHARD C. WEBSTER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JOHN SMITH, Appellant-Petitioner, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 03A05-0607-PC-383

APPEAL FROM THE BARTHOLOMEW CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Stephen R. Heimann, Judge Cause No. 03C01-9403-CF-261

March 22, 2007

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CRONE, Judge

Case Summary John Smith appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm. Issues Smith raises four issues, which we consolidate and restate as follows: I. II. Whether he received ineffective assistance of guilty plea counsel; and Whether the trial court committed reversible error in accepting his guilty plea. Facts and Procedural History On March 3, 1994, Smith and five other men committed two separate acts of robbery in Columbus. In the first, they battered a man and stole his wallet in a bar parking lot. Later, they assaulted two other men. One man fled, but the other was stabbed and his wallet stolen. Witnesses identified a gray van at the scene of the first robbery. As police were transporting the victim of the second robbery to police headquarters, they spotted the gray van. The police pulled over the van. The driver and Smith, who was then the only passenger, were arrested for public intoxication. The driver of the van admitted that he was involved in the robberies and implicated Smith and several other men. Smith declined to speak with police. The police interviewed the men the driver had implicated in the robberies. Five men admitted their involvement in the robberies and all five implicated Smith. On March 9, 1994, the State charged Smith with class B felony robbery. On March 18, 1994, counsel entered her appearance on behalf of Smith. On March 23, 1994, the State charged Smith with a second count of class A felony robbery. Smith initially pled not guilty to both counts. Smith's counsel filed a motion to produce, requesting, inter alia, production of the probable

2

cause affidavit; copies of all police reports including those of the arresting officer, the officers at the scene of the crime or arrest, the investigating officer, the detective; and that the State divulge any evidence that would tend to exculpate Smith. Ex. 16(2). Smith's counsel received the police reports before the guilty plea hearing. Tr. at 13. The police reports show that all five co-defendants implicated Smith as a perpetrator of and significant participant in the robberies. 1 The police reports also show that the two victims and a witness reported that the attackers they saw were black males. Smith is Caucasian. Smith's counsel attempted to interview the victims and witnesses, but was unsuccessful. At the post-conviction hearing, Smith's counsel testified that before she advised Smith to accept a plea agreement, he admitted to her that he was involved in the robberies. Based on the evidence as a whole, she recommended that he accept a plea agreement. Id. at 23. On August 1, 1994, Smith entered into a plea agreement. At the change of plea hearing, the trial court informed Smith of the possible sentencing ranges for class A, class B, and class C felony robberies. Petitioner's Ex. 1, p. 8-9. The trial court also informed Smith that consecutive sentences could be imposed. Id. at 13. The State read and explained the charges filed against him. Id. at 6. Smith testified that he understood that Indiana law provides that if a person aids, causes, or induces another to commit an offense, that person is considered to have committed the offense. Id. at 18. 2 Smith then testified that he knowingly

Smith's failure to paginate his appendices hindered our review. We remind Smith that pro se litigants are held to the same standard regarding rule compliance as are attorneys duly admitted to the practice of law and must comply with the appellate rules to have their appeal determined on the merits. Gentry v. State, 586 N.E.2d 860, 860 (Ind. Ct. App .1992).
2

1

See Ind. Code

Download John Smith v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law