Legal Opinion

David Hopper v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided September 28, 2010No. 13S01-1007-PC-399PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BOEHM, Justice.

David Hopper entered a plea of guilty in 2005 to a charge of Operating While Intox*1087icated, a Class A Misdemeanor. At the plea hearing, the trial court advised Hopper that he had a right to an attorney and if he could not afford an attorney one would be appointed for him. Hopper confirmed, as recited in a written "Waiver of Attorney" form he had signed at the initial hearing, that he wished to proceed without an attorney. Hopper then admitted to the factual basis of the charge and the trial court accepted the plea.

In 2009, Hopper filed a petition for post-conviction relief,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. White v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Patterson v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  4. Iowa v. TovarSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  5. Greer v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1998

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Hopper v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 2011
  2. Butler v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2011
  3. Timothy Hammerlund v. State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2012
  4. Butler v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2011
  5. Butler v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2011

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API