William Slaton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
Apr 16 2019, 9:16 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Stephen T. Owens Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Jonathan O. Chenoweth Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana J.T. Whitehead
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
William Slaton, April 16, 2019
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-PC-1607
v. Appeal from the Vanderburgh
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Robert J. Pigman,
Appellee-Respondent. Judge.
Trial Court Cause No.
82D03-1604-PC-2070
Tavitas, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1607 | April 16, 2019 Page 1 of 20
Case Summary
[1] William Slaton Jr. appeals the post-conviction court’s (“PC court”) denial of his
petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR”). We affirm.
Issues
[2] Slaton raises two issues, which we restate as:
I. Whether Slaton was denied the effective assistance of
appellate counsel.
II. Whether Slaton pleaded guilty involuntarily to the habitual
substance offender allegation because he was not properly
advised of his rights.
Facts
[3] The facts, as stated in Slaton’s direct appeal, follow:
On June 27, 2013, the Evansville Police Department received a
report of suspected methamphetamine manufacturing at Slaton’s
address. Four officers arrived at the address and smelled a
chemical odor, which they associated with the manufacture of
methamphetamine, coming from the house. Officers Robert
Hahn and Nick Henderson approached the house, which was
divided into two apartments. The officers walked up onto the
porch, which allowed access to doors belonging to each
apartment.
The officers first knocked on the door to the rear apartment, and
a woman answered. The officers explained why they were at the
house. The woman informed them that the odor was coming
from next door and pointed them to the other apartment. The
officers walked across the porch to the front apartment. The
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1607 | April 16, 2019 Page 2 of 20
door to that apartment was boarded up, but next to the door was
an open window. Officer Hahn looked through the window and
into the apartment that belonged to Slaton. He saw Slaton
inside, carrying a glass jar toward the kitchen sink. Officer Hahn
asked Slaton to stop. Slaton made eye contact with Officer
Hahn, but Slaton, still holding the jar, continued more quickly
toward the sink despite the officer’s repeated requests to stop. At
that point, Officer Henderson dove through the open window
and grabbed Slaton.
The police detained Slaton and two other individuals located in
the house. Once outside, Slaton consented to a search of the
apartment. The search produced a number of items associated
with the manufacture of methamphetamine, including:
pseudoephedrine blister packs; lithium batteries; ammonium
nitrate cold packs; aluminum foil; lye; acid-based drain cleaner; a
glass jar with tubing attached to it; and several empty two-liter
bottles. Additionally, 0.69 grams of methamphetamine was
found in Slaton’s bedroom.
The State charged Slaton as follows: Count 1, dealing in
methamphetamine, a Class B felony; Count 2, maintaining a
common nuisance, a Class D felony; and Count 3, dealing in
methamphetamine, a Class B felony. The State also alleged that
Slaton was an habitual substance offender. Slaton filed a pre-trial
motion to suppress, which the trial court denied. A jury trial was
held in September 2014, and the jury found Slaton guilty of
attempted dealing in methamphetamine, a lesser included offense
of Count 1, and guilty of possession of methamphetamine, a
lesser included offense of Count 3. Slaton admitted to being an
habitual substance offender. The trial court sentenced Slaton to
fifteen years on Count 1, enhanced by three years due to his
habitual substance offender status, and one and one-half years on
Count 3, to be served concurrently with Count 1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1607 | April 16, 2019 Page 3 of 20
Slaton v. State, No. 82A05-1412-CR-589, slip op. at 2-4 (Ind. Ct. App. July 20,
2015) (footnote omitted).
[4] On direct appeal, Slaton raised two issues: (1) whether evidence admitted at
trial was obtained as a result of an illegal search of Slaton’s curtilage and
residence, and (2) whether his sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature
of his offenses and his character. We concluded that Slaton’s Fourth
Amendment rights were not violated and that his sentence was not
inappropriate.
[5] In April 2016, Slaton filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which he later
amended. Slaton argued that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective
assistance of counsel because counsel failed to raise a jury instruction issue on
direct appeal and that his guilty plea to being a habitual substance offender was
involuntary because the trial court failed to advise Slaton of his rights. After a
hearing, the PC court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law denying
Slaton’s petition for PCR. Slaton now appeals.
Analysis
[6] Slaton appeals the PC court’s denial of his petition for PCR. Our Supreme
Court has stated:
The petitioner in a post-conviction proceeding bears the burden
of establishing grounds for relief by a preponderance of the
evidence. When appealing from the denial of post-conviction
relief, the petitioner stands in the position of one appealing from
a negative judgment. To prevail on appeal from the denial of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1607 | April 16, 2019 Page 4 of 20
post-conviction relief, a petitioner must show that the evidence as
a whole leads unerringly and unmistakably to a conclusion
opposite that reached by the post-conviction court. [Where, as
here, a post-conviction court has made findings of fact and
conclusions of law in accordance with Indiana Post-Conviction
Rule 1(6), we] do not defer to the post-conviction court’s legal
conclusions[.] A post-conviction court’s findings and judgment
will be reversed only upon a showing of clear error – that which
leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been made.
Hollowell v. State, 19 N.E.3d 263, 268-69 (Ind. 2014) (internal quotations and
citations omitted). As the clearly erroneous standard “is a review for
sufficiency of evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor determine the
credibility of witnesses.” State v. Greene, 16 N.E.3d 416, 418 (Ind. 2014).
“Rather, we ‘consider only the evidence that supports that judgment and the
reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence.’” Id. (quoting Ben-Yisrayl
v. State, 738 N.E.2d 253, 258-59 (Ind. 2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1164, 122 S.
Ct. 1178 (2000)).
I. Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel
[7] Slaton argues that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing
to raise a jury instruction issue on direct appeal. The standard of review for a
claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is the same as for trial
counsel. Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 729 N.E.2d 102, 106 (Ind. 2000), cert. denied, 534
U.S. 830, 122 S. Ct. 73 (2001). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate both that: (1) his or her counsel’s
performance was deficient, and (2) the petitioner was prejudiced by the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1607 | April 16, 2019 Page 5 of 20
deficient performance. Id. (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687,
104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984). The failure to satisfy either prong will cause the
claim to fail. Grinstead v. State, 845 N.E.2d 1027, 1031 (Ind. 2006). Ineffective
assistance of counsel claims, thus, can be resolved by a prejudice analysis alone.
Id.[8] Our Supreme Court has held that ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
claims “generally fall into three basic categories: (1) denial of access to an
appeal, (2) waiver of issues, and (3) failure to present issues well.” Garrett v.
State, 992 N.E.2d 710, 724 (Ind. 2013). Slaton’s claim is based upon the waiver
of issues category. “To show that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise an
issue on appeal thus resulting in waiver for collateral review, ‘the defendant
must overcome the strongest presumption of adequate assistance, and judicial
scrutiny is highly deferential.’” Id. (quoting Ben-Yisrayl, 738 N.E.2d at 260-61).
[9] To evaluate the performance prong when appellate counsel waived issues upon
appeal, we apply the following test: (1) whether the unraised issues are
significant and obvious from the face of the record; and (2) whether the
unraised issues are clearly stronger than the raised issues. Id. “If the analysis
under this test demonstrates deficient performance, then we evaluate the
prejudice prong which requires an examination of whether ‘the issues which . . .
appellate counsel failed to raise would have been clearly more likely to result in
reversal or an order for a new trial.’” Id. (quoting Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d
188, 194 (Ind. 1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1021, 119 S. Ct. 550 (1998)).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1607 | April 16, 2019 Page 6 of 20
[10] Slaton argues that the trial court improperly gave a jury instruction on
attempted dealing in methamphetamine as a lesser-included offense, that he
objected to the instruction, and that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing
to raise the issue on direct appeal. We disagree. We conclude that the jury
instruction issue was not clearly stronger than the issues raised by appellate
counsel. Moreover, even if Slaton’s appellate counsel had raised the jury
instruction issue on direct appeal, the issue would not have been likely to result
in a reversal of Slaton’s convictions.
[11] Our Supreme Court has developed a three-part test to determine whether to
instruct a jury on a lesser-included offense of the crime charged. “First, the trial
court must compare the statute defining the crime charged with the statute
defining the alleged lesser-included offense to determine if the alleged lesser-
included offense is inherently included in the crime charged.” Fisher v. State,
810 N.E.2d 674, 678 (Ind. 2004). “Second, if a trial court determines that an
alleged lesser-included offense is not inherently included in the crime charged
under step one, then it must determine if the alleged lesser-included offense is
factually included in the crime charged.” Id. “If the alleged lesser-included
offense is neither inherently nor factually included in the crime charged, the
trial court should not give an instruction on the alleged lesser-included offense.”
Id. “Third, if a trial court has determined that an alleged lesser-included offense
is either inherently or factually included in the crime charged, it must look at
the evidence presented in the case by both parties to determine if there is a
serious evidentiary dispute about the element or elements distinguishing the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1607 | April 16, 2019 Page 7 of 20
greater from the lesser offense and if, in view of this dispute, a jury could
conclude that the lesser offense was committed but not the greater.” Id.[12] Here, Slaton argues only with respect to the third step. 1 According to Slaton,
there was no serious evidentiary dispute that would have warranted instructing
the jury on attempted dealing in methamphetamine. Slaton was charged with
dealing methamphetamine, which, at the time of Slaton’s offense, provided in
part: “A person who: (1) knowingly or intentionally: (A) manufactures . . .
methamphetamine, pure or adulterated, . . . commits dealing in
methamphetamine, a Class B felony. . . .” Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1(a). The
term “manufacture” means “the production, preparation, propagation,
compounding, conversion, or processing of a controlled substance, either
directly or indirectly by extraction from substances of natural origin,
independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of
extraction and chemical synthesis, and includes any packaging or repackaging
of the substance or labeling or relabeling of its container.” Ind. Code § 35-48-1-
18.
[13] Slaton notes that “Indiana courts have consistently held that the manufacturing
process need not be complete to violate the manufacturing statute.” Buelna v.
State, 20 N.E.3d 137, 141 (Ind. 2014). Slaton contends that the police officers
smelled odors associated with a meth lab and found precursors, used reaction
1
An attempt to commit an offense is inherently included in that offense. See Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-168(2).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1607 | April 16, 2019 Page 8 of 20
vessels, and methamphetamine. According to Slaton, “there was no dispute
that meth had been made; at issue was whether it had been made by Slaton or
Hale.” Appellant’s Br. p. 24. Slaton argues that, because manufacturing was in
process, there was no evidence to support an attempted dealing
methamphetamine instruction. The State, however, points out that our
appellate opinion “makes it clear that there was no active lab at work when the
police officers arrived at Petitioner’s home, and Petitioner himself argued as
such at trial.” Appellee’s Br. p. 15.
[14] The PC court found that the instruction was proper because a serious
evidentiary dispute existed:
In Petitioner’s case, there was a serious evidentiary dispute
regarding the extent of operations, when and if the operation
occurred, and who performed what part of the operation. As
noted by the Indiana Court of Appeals in its opinion and by trial
counsel in her argument at sentencing, the evidence at trial
established that there was no active lab at the time police arrived.
One officer observed Petitioner walking with a glass jar toward
the sink and Petitioner’s subsequent refusal to follow his
command to stop. In its later search, police discovered items
associated with the manufacture of methamphetamine
(pseudoephedrine blister packs, lithium batteries, ammonium
nitrate cold packs, aluminum foil, lye, drain cleaner; a glass jar
with tubing attached, and several empty two-liter bottles).
However, a complete and intact operational lab was not present.
Officers noted a smell before entering but no smoke, heat or other
evidence of active “cooking” was observed once they had made
entry. No methamphetamine was in production at that time, and
the two-liter bottles were empty of any partially finished or
finished product. Officers located less than a gram of
methamphetamine in a separate room, and there was no
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1607 | April 16, 2019 Page 9 of 20
evidence that it or the “pill dough,” a by-product of the
methamphetamine cooking process, found in the toilet were from
the possible lab components. Nor was there evidence that the
“pill dough” had been recently produced or placed in the toilet.
While there was a scintilla of evidence that a lab had been active
sometime prior to officers’ entry, it is questionable whether the
State could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the lab had
been in operation while Petitioner was present. This conclusion
is consistent with the fact that the jury did in fact convict
Petitioner of attempted dealing only.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 11-12. The PC court concluded that the jury
instruction issue was not clearly stronger than the issues raised on direct appeal
and that Slaton failed to demonstrate appellate counsel’s performance was
deficient.
[15] As we noted in our opinion in Slaton’s direct appeal, when officers entered
Slaton’s residence, they found many precursors needed to manufacture
methamphetamine, and they found a small amount of methamphetamine in a
bedroom. They did not, however, discover an active methamphetamine lab.
The PC court’s conclusion that a serious evidentiary dispute existed as to
whether Slaton committed dealing methamphetamine or attempted dealing
methamphetamine is not clearly erroneous.
[16] Given the serious evidentiary dispute, the jury instruction issue was not clearly
stronger than the Fourth Amendment and sentencing issues raised by appellate
counsel on direct appeal. Moreover, even if appellate counsel had raised the
jury instruction issue on direct appeal, Slaton failed to demonstrate that the
outcome of the appeal would have been different. The PC court properly
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1607 | April 16, 2019 Page 10 of 20
denied Slaton’s petition for PCR on his claim of ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel.
II. Involuntary Guilty Plea
[17] Next, Slaton argues that his guilty plea to the habitual substance offender
allegation was involuntary. A post-conviction proceeding is a proper vehicle
for challenging a guilty plea, and we look at the evidence before the post-
conviction court that supports its determination that a guilty plea was
voluntary, intelligent, and knowing. Moffitt v. State, 817 N.E.2d 239, 248-49
(Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. According to Slaton, the guilty plea was
involuntary because the trial court did not inform him of his rights pursuant to
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709 (1969). See Hall v. State, 849
N.E.2d 466, 469 (Ind. 2006) (“Boykin requires that the record must show, or
there must be an allegation and evidence which show, that the defendant was
informed of, and waived, three specific federal constitutional rights: the
privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, right to trial by jury, and the
right to confront one’s accusers.”); see also Ind. Code § 35-35-1-2. 2 The State,
2
At the time of Slaton’s offense and trial, Indiana Code Section 35-35-1-2(a) provided:
The court shall not accept a plea of guilty or guilty but mentally ill at the time of the crime
without first determining that the defendant:
(1) understands the nature of the charge against the defendant;
(2) has been informed that by the defendant’s plea the defendant waives the defendant’s rights
to:
(A) a public and speedy trial by jury;
(B) confront and cross-examine the witnesses against the defendant;
(C) have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the defendant’s favor; and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1607 | April 16, 2019 Page 11 of 20
however, argues that Slaton did not plead guilty to the habitual substance
offender allegation; rather, Slaton stipulated to the facts and a Boykin
advisement was not required.
[18] After the jury found Slaton guilty, the following discussion occurred outside the
presence of the jury:
BY COURT: Okay. Have the parties talked about - everybody
can be seated. Have the parties had any conversation about the
remaining Count [the habitual offender count]?
[Deputy Prosecutor]: Judge with respect to the remaining count
the terms of years is three to eight years. The State is willing to
make an offer on the HSO if Defendant pleads of [sic] three years
with the Court to determine placement.
BY COURT: Okay.
(D) require the state to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at
which the defendant may not be compelled to testify against himself or herself;
(3) has been informed of the maximum possible sentence and minimum sentence for the crime
charged and any possible increased sentence by reason of the fact of a prior conviction or
convictions, and any possibility of the imposition of consecutive sentences;
(4) has been informed that the person will lose the right to possess a firearm if the person is
convicted of a crime of domestic violence (IC 35-31.5-2-78); and
(5) has been informed that if:
(A) there is a plea agreement as defined by IC 35-31.5-2-236; and
(B) the court accepts the plea;
the court is bound by the terms of the plea agreement.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1607 | April 16, 2019 Page 12 of 20
[Deputy Prosecutor]: But there needs to be a decision because
the jury is waiting.
BY COURT: Right. You want to talk to your client about that?
[The parties then arrange a meeting between defense counsel and
Slaton]
BY COURT: Okay. All right. Come and get me when you’re
finished.
*****
[Defense Counsel]: Mr. Slaton I have advised you that the State
has offered you a plea deal for three years and at this time after
hearing the maximum and the minimum that you can serve if
you go to trial on this what would you like to do?
BY DEFENDANT: Take the three I guess.
[Defense Counsel]: He wants to take the three year offer.
BY COURT: Okay. Is that a voluntary act on your part sir?
BY DEFENDANT: Yeah (affirmative) as much as I hate to
even do time at all.
BY COURT: Okay. Well it’s an enhancement of your sentence
so if you appeal your sentence and you get it reversed then this
goes away. Do you understand that?
BY DEFENDANT: I know.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1607 | April 16, 2019 Page 13 of 20
BY COURT: Okay. And so you admit that you have those two
misdemeanor marijuana possession charges?
BY DEFENDANT: Yes.
BY COURT: Okay. And that you - you’d have a right to a
hearing on that and your Counsel would be here, you’d have a
right to question the evidence just like you did at the trial. Do
you understand all that? Do you understand that sir?
BY DEFENDANT: Yeah (affirmative).
BY COURT: Okay. All right. And you want to go ahead and
admit that that petition they’ve filed is true, is that right?
BY DEFENDANT: Yes.
BY COURT: Okay. Let’s set a sentencing date then. We’ll
show an admission. Let’s set a sentencing date for . . .
Trial Tr. Vol. pp. 402-05.
[19] The chronological case summary provides a “Plea Guilty” disposition of the
habitual substance offender allegation on the day of the trial. Appellant’s
Direct Appeal Suppl. App. p. 72. At sentencing, however, the CCS provides:
“Defendant admitted to the Habitual Substance Offender count during Trial by
jury.” Id. at 73. The trial court’s sentencing order provides both a “Plea
Guilty” with respect to the habitual substance offender allegation and that
“Defendant admitted to the Habitual Substance Offender count during Trial by
Jury.” Direct Appeal App. Vol. I p. 125.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1607 | April 16, 2019 Page 14 of 20
[20] The PC court found that Slaton did not, in fact, plead guilty. Rather, the PC
court found Slaton’s situation “nearly identical” to the situation in Hopkins v.
State, 889 N.E.2d 314 (Ind. 2008), and concluded:
The trial transcript establishes that after the jury found Petitioner
guilty of two charges, the State offered that it would agree to a
sentence of three (3) years with the Court to determine placement
for execution of the sentence if Petitioner admitted to “the
HSO.” After discussions with trial counsel, Petitioner agreed to
do so. The jury was still present in the jury room and the State
had witnesses and exhibits. The State submitted its evidence to
trial counsel who was granted time to review and discuss the
evidence and its implications and consequences with Petitioner.
Petitioner then admitted the two (2) misdemeanor convictions for
possession of marijuana that were listed on the documents and
confirmed that he was doing so voluntarily. After further
inquiry, he also admitted that the State’s allegations in its
pleading were true – that the convictions were prior and
unrelated as set forth in the statute. Because Petitioner did not
plead guilty but rather stipulated to facts, the Court was not
required to confirm Petitioner had been advised of and waived
any specific rights before accepting his admission. Consequently,
Petitioner had failed to carry his burden of proof as to this
allegation.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 13-14.
[21] In Hopkins, the defendant challenged his habitual offender status in a petition
for PCR. He argued that his “guilty plea” to the habitual offender allegation
was not voluntary and intelligent because he was not advised of his rights under
Boykin, including his right against self-incrimination, the right to trial by jury,
and the right to confront his accusers. The parties, however, contested whether
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1607 | April 16, 2019 Page 15 of 20
the defendant had entered into a guilty plea or a stipulation of facts. The post-
conviction court determined that the defendant had entered into a stipulation of
facts, not a guilty plea. Consequently, the defendant was not required to be
advised of his Boykin rights.
[22] On appeal, our Supreme Court noted the following:
After the jury returned its verdict on the principal charges back in
2000, Hopkins and his lawyers indicated a desire to waive trial by
jury on the habitual allegation. There followed a discussion
between the trial court, counsel, and the defendant.
MR. GELLER: Yes, Judge, (inaudible). . . . Judge, my client
will admit to the elements involved in the habitual offender.
******
THE COURT: Mr. Hopkins, you’re aware that you have the
continuing right to have this phase of the trial determined by
the Jury which has previously been sworn in this cause—is
that correct?
DEFENDANT ANTHONY HOPKINS: Yes.
THE COURT: And it’s your choice to waive that jury trial
and to proceed by stipulation and admit your guilt on the—or
admit that the State has proven the habitual offender
sentence enhancement—is that correct, sir?
DEFENDANT ANTHONY HOPKINS: Is it—can I ask
you a question on this?
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1607 | April 16, 2019 Page 16 of 20
THE COURT: Um hum . . . .
DEFENDANT ANTHONY HOPKINS: As far as me
pleading guilty on that. If I appeal my case and over turn
[sic] it—does that still stand—if I plead guilty for the
habitual?
******
THE COURT: Okay—it is correct that if you appeal and the
Court of Appeals over turns [sic] the conviction upon which
the Court attaches the sentencing enhancement, then that’s
out—because it’s not a new crime. It’s enhancement of that
sentence. It is also possible that the Court of Appeals could
reverse and remand for retrial—if the reversal wasn’t for
insufficiency of the evidence. So, it could get reversed. It
could come back and we could retry that count in theory and
then the sentencing enhancement could again attach. Do
you understand that?
DEFENDANT ANTHONY HOPKINS: Yes, ma’am.
******
THE COURT: Okay—I believe I asked you, but let me
repeat or—just to cover my bases, that you have the right
to—continuing right to counsel throughout the habitual
phase of this trial. Do you understand that?
DEFENDANT ANTHONY HOPKINS: Yes, ma’am.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you want to proceed with the
stipulation of the habitual sentencing enhancement at this
time?
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1607 | April 16, 2019 Page 17 of 20
DEFENDANT ANTHONY HOPKINS: Yes, ma’am.
[The State then set forth the dates of the commission,
conviction, and sentencing of the three felony offenses used
to establish Hopkins’ habitual offender status, and the
exhibits were admitted into evidence without objection from
Hopkins.]
THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Hopkins, is that true as stated by
the Prosecutor?
DEFENDANT ANTHONY HOPKINS: Yes, ma’am.
******
THE COURT: Okay, the Court finds that the State has
proven that Anthony Hopkins accumulated three—two or
more—in this case, three, prior unrelated felony convictions.
The commission, conviction and sentencing on the first
occurring before the commission, conviction and sentencing
[on the second]; the second which occurred before the
commission, conviction and sentencing on the third—all of
which occurred before the commission and conviction of Mr.
Hopkins in the present case. And we will show that the
sentence enhancement has been—habitual sentence
enhancement has been proven.
(Tr. at 737-47 (emphasis added).) The trial court then brought
the jurors back into the courtroom and informed them what had
just transpired: “Okay—the good news is that [phase two] of this
trial, the Defendant [ ] and the State resolved by stipulation or
admission.” (Id. at 748 (emphasis added).) The Court then
dismissed the jury and eventually imposed additional years for
the habitual.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1607 | April 16, 2019 Page 18 of 20
Hopkins, 889 N.E.2d at 315-17. Our Supreme Court agreed with the post-
conviction court and held that the “post-conviction court’s determination that
what occurred was a stipulation rather than a plea should stand.” Id. at 317.
[23] We agree that this case is much like Hopkins. As in Hopkins, the trial court and
the parties here mentioned both guilty pleas and admitting prior convictions.
Slaton attempts to argue that he was in fact pleading guilty because, in addition
to admitting to the underlying prior offenses, he also admitted that the petition
was true. The petition alleged that Slaton had two prior substance offenses,
which were Class A misdemeanors or Class D felonies and were unrelated to
the current substance offenses charged. The PC court found that Slaton was
merely admitting “that the State’s allegations in its pleading were true – that the
convictions were prior and unrelated as set forth in the statute.” Appellant’s
App. Vol. II p. 102.
[24] As in Hopkins, although the trial court could have been much clearer here in the
procedure it was following, we cannot say that the PC court’s conclusion is
clearly erroneous. Because the PC court determined that the procedure here
was a stipulation rather than a guilty plea, the Boykin advisements were not
required. The PC court’s denial of Slaton’s PCR petition on this issue is not
clearly erroneous.
Conclusion
[25] The PC court’s denial of Slaton’s petition for PCR is not clearly erroneous. We
affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1607 | April 16, 2019 Page 19 of 20
[26] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-1607 | April 16, 2019 Page 20 of 20