Norris v. State, 43S03-0807-CR-379
11-12-08, Ind.
Attorney: Nancy A. McClaslin
Holding: A guilty plea may not be challenged in post-conviction proceedings by a claim of newly discovered evidence regarding the events that constituted the crime. Indiana requires a factual basis for a guilty plea, and judge may not accept a guilty plea while a defendant claims actual innocence. Ross v. State, 456 N.E.2d 420 (Ind. 1983). Moreover, a guilty plea conclusively establishes the fact of guilt, a prerequisite for imposition of criminal punishment.
In holding that a guilty plea forecloses a post-conviction challenge to the facts established by trial court’s acceptance of guilty plea and resulting conviction, Court cited P-C R. 1(8), which provides that post-conviction relief generally may not be based upon any “ground…knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction.” In establishing extraordinary remedy of post-conviction relief, Court intended the phrase “material facts, not previously presented and heard,” in P-C R. 1(a)(4), to refer to evidentiary facts presented to trial court and which had a sufficient causative effect on resulting determination of guilt.
Here, after Defendant pled guilty to child molesting, complaining witness’s (CW’s) mother submitted affidavit recanting her previous claim that Defendant molested CW. Defendant also submitted psychological report indicating low to borderline range of intellectual functioning. Rather than asking to set aside his guilty plea and proceed to trial, Defendant sought to vacate his conviction. The issue of whether Defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary was not presented. When trial court accepted Defendant’s guilty plea, he waived the right to present evidence regarding his guilt or innocence.
Held, transfer granted, Court of Appeals’ opinion at 881 N.E.2d 691 vacated, denial of post-conviction relief affirmed.
Boehm and Rucker, JJ., concurring in result, disagree with majority’s holding that a guilty plea precludes a court from granting post-conviction relief on a claim of actual innocence. “Any system of justice must allow for correction of injustice based on clear and convincing evidence of innocence, even if the defendant can be said to have contributed to his own plight by pleading guilty.” See Sanchez v. State, 749 N.E.2d 509, 515 (Ind. 2001); Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 417 (1993). Further, Post-Conviction Rule 1(a)(4) acknowledges the need for relief on a showing of “evidence of material facts, not previously mentioned and heard, that requires vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice.”
