Allender v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Allender v. State

560 N.E.2d 545, 1990 Ind. App. LEXIS 1315, 1990 WL 151881

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 9, 1990

DocketNo. 55A01-9005-PC-211

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 560 N.E.2d 545 (Allender v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allender v. State, 560 N.E.2d 545, 1990 Ind. App. LEXIS 1315, 1990 WL 151881 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

BAKER, Judge.

Defendant-appellant, Richard D. Allender (Allender), appeals the summary denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Al lender contends on appeal that his plea of guilty to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, a Class D felony,¹ was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent, because he was not advised that his driver's license could be suspended for 10 years if the Bureau of Motor Vehicles determined that he was an habitual traffic offender. Allen-der maintains that he would not have pled guilty had the trial court informed him of the possible ten-year suspension.²

At the guilty plea hearing, the trial court advised Allender that "[t]he conviction will [be] forwarded to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to become part of your driving record and could qualify you as a Habitual Traffic Offender." Record at 18. IND. CODE 9-4-7-9 requires the trial court to advise a defendant that a record of his conviction will be forwarded to the motor vehicle commissioner to become a part of the defendant's driving record. Nothing in the statute requires the trial court to advise a defendant of the administrative action the Bureau may take. Further, Allen-der does not assert that the advisement is constitutionally required and we can think of nothing to support such an assertion.

Because Allender was entitled to no relief on his petition, the post-conviction court properly found his petition subject to summary dismissal. Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(e).

Judgment affirmed.

ROBERTSON and GARRARD, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BAKER, Judge.

Defendant-appellant, Richard D. Allender (Allender), appeals the summary denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Al lender contends on appeal that his plea of guilty to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, a Class D felony,¹ was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent, because he was not advised that his driver's license could be suspended for 10 years if the Bureau of Motor Vehicles determined that he was an habitual traffic offender. Allen-der maintains that he would not have pled guilty had the trial court informed him of the possible ten-year suspension.²

At the guilty plea hearing, the trial court advised Allender that "[t]he conviction will [be] forwarded to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to become part of your driving record and could qualify you as a Habitual Traffic Offender." Record at 18. IND. CODE 9-4-7-9 requires the trial court to advise a defendant that a record of his conviction will be forwarded to the motor vehicle commissioner to become a part of the defendant's driving record. Nothing in the statute requires the trial court to advise a defendant of the administrative action the Bureau may take. Further, Allen-der does not assert that the advisement is constitutionally required and we can think of nothing to support such an assertion.

Because Allender was entitled to no relief on his petition, the post-conviction court properly found his petition subject to summary dismissal. Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(e).

Judgment affirmed.

ROBERTSON and GARRARD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

560 N.E.2d 545, 1990 Ind. App. LEXIS 1315, 1990 WL 151881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allender-v-state-indctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack