Legal Opinion · Dissent

Turner v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided March 26, 1991No. 49A02-8911-PC-605Published

1DissentBuchanan, Judge

I respectfully dissent.

I

I do not agree with the majority's conclusion that a factual basis was required for Turner's guilty plea to be accepted. Turner's plea was entered prior to the 19783 effective date of Ind.Code 385-4.1-1-4(b) (1973) [now Ind.Code 85-385-1-8(b)] which was the first statutory requirement that a factual basis be established before a guilty plea could be accepted. The majority cites Harshman v. State (1958), 282 Ind. 618, 115 N.E.2d 501, for the proposition that a factual basis was required prior to the enactment of I.C. 85-4.1-1-4(b). I do not think so.

In Horshkman, the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. MacHibroda v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  4. Lawrence v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Harshman v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1953

9 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