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: WILLIE JONES ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEPHEN R. CARTER

Pendleton, Indiana

Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana MATTHEW D. FISHER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
WILLIE JONES, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A02-0701-PC-49

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge Cause No. 49G06-0312-PC-219539

OCTOBER 15, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION ROBERTSON, Senior Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Defendant-Appellant Willie Jones ("Jones") is appealing from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm. ISSUES Jones states the issues as: I. "Whether the plea was knowingly, intentionally and intelligently entered into?" II. "Whether there was insufficient factual basis for the acceptance of the plea and the plea was the result of coercion and based upon information the State knew was false?" III. "Whether Trial (Defense) counsel was ineffective for failing to present the favorable testimony of Jucinta Roland and for advising Appellant Jones to plead guilty to an offense that he maintained he was innocent of?" FACTS

Jones, who had two Class C felony convictions for robbery, was stopped by the police when he failed to signal a turn while driving. When asked for his identification, Jones reached for the glove compartment, but then hesitated. Jucinta Roland, who was in the front passenger seat, opened the glove compartment. The police saw a pistol partially covered with papers. The papers were documents containing Jones' name.
Jones entered into a plea agreement whereby he entered a guilty plea to the Class B felony of possession of a handgun by a serious violent felony, and would receive a sentence of eighteen years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction. No direct appeal was taken from the judgment. As a part of the plea agreement the state and federal authorities agreed to dismiss other pending charges. Supplemental facts are added in the discussion of Issue I.

2

DISCUSSION AND DECISION Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(b) requires a concise statement of the applicable standard of review. Jones fails to do this. The purpose of a petition for post-conviction relief is to raise issues unknown or unavailable to a defendant at the time of the original trial and appeal. Emerson v. State, 812 N.E.2d 1090, 1095 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Post-conviction relief is not a "super-appeal" which

allows the rehashing of prior proceedings regardless of the circumstances surrounding them. Id. The petitioner bears the burden of establishing the grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. Where the post-conviction court denies relief, the petitioner appeals from a negative judgment and faces the rigorous burden of showing that the evidence as a whole leads unerringly and unmistakably to a conclusion opposite to that reached by the post-conviction court. Id. "In other words, the defendant must convince this Court that there is no way within the law that the court below could have reached the decision it did." Stevens v. State, 770 N.E.2d 739, 745 (Ind. 2002). (Original emphasis.) Issue I. The reason Jones contends that his guilty plea was not intelligently given was because his trial counsel did not inform him of the provisions of Ind. Code

Download Willie Jones v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law