WILLIAMS v. STATE (2021)

Supreme Court of Indiana.2021-03-16No. Supreme Court Case No. 21S-CR-113

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's sentence while holding that trial courts must ensure the plea agreement, guilty plea colloquy, sentencing hearing discussion, and sentencing order are clear and consistent regarding whether a defendant waives only the right to appeal conviction or also waives the right to appeal sentence.

Danny Lee Williams pleaded guilty to two drug-related felonies and received a six-year sentence. His plea agreement included a waiver of the right to appeal, but the trial court's advisement at sentencing addressed only the waiver of appeal rights regarding conviction, not sentencing. The sentencing order later stated Williams waived his right to appeal the sentence, though this was never clearly explained to him. When Williams appealed his sentence anyway, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case based on the waiver language in the sentencing order.

The Indiana Supreme Court transferred the case to address an important procedural issue. The court held that a vague or generalized waiver clause in a plea agreement is insufficient to establish that a defendant knowingly and voluntarily surrendered appellate rights regarding sentencing. The court found that the trial court, plea agreement, sentencing hearing discussion, and sentencing order were not sufficiently clear and consistent about what rights Williams was waiving.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Validity of sentence appeal waivers in plea agreements
Sufficiency of judicial advisement regarding waiver of appellate rights
Consistency requirements among plea agreement, colloquy, and sentencing order

Procedural posture

The case came to the Indiana Supreme Court on a petition to transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, which had dismissed Williams's appeal based on his waiver of appellate rights.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 20A-CR-910

Danny Lee Williams pleaded guilty to Dealing in Methamphetamine, a Level 3 felony, and Dealing in a Narcotic Drug, a Level 4 felony. The plea agreement called for the two sentences to run concurrently, with sentencing left to the discretion of the trial court, and Williams checked a box that stated, “DEFENDANT WAIVES RIGHT TO APPEAL.” The trial court sentenced Williams to six years for the Level 3 felony charge and two years for the Level 4 felony charge, for a total of six years executed.

At the sentencing hearing, the judge advised Williams that by pleading guilty, he was waiving the right to appeal his conviction; but the judge failed to clarify whether Williams also was waiving the right to appeal his sentence. Despite this failure to clarify, the sentencing order stated that Williams waived his right to appeal “the sentence imposed by the Court that is within the range set forth in the agreement.” The court then appointed a public defender “for purposes of preparing and filing an appeal in this matter.” After Williams filed his appellants brief, in which he argued his sentence is inappropriate, the Court of Appeals granted the States motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that Williams waived the right to appeal his sentence.

In Johnson v. State, 145 N.E.3d 785, 786-87 (Ind. 2020), we held that a plea agreements generalized statement that the defendant “waives right to appeal,” without more, was insufficient to establish the knowing and voluntary waiver of the defendants right to appeal his sentence. Here, it is not apparent from the plea agreement or the colloquy at the sentencing hearing that Williams knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his sentence. We grant transfer for the sole purpose of reminding trial judges that the plea agreement, guilty plea and sentencing hearing colloquy, and sentencing order must be clear and consistent as to whether a defendant waives only the right to appeal the conviction or the right to appeal the conviction and sentence. We affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court, which allows Williams to seek a sentence modification upon his successful completion of a substance abuse treatment program and is not one of the outliers Appellate Rule 7(B) is intended to leaven. See Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008).

Per curiam.

Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur.