Edward S. Helvie, Jr. v. State of Indiana

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 10, 2024
• Docket: 24A-CR-01441
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE

Court of Appeals of Indiana Edward Helvie, Jr., FILED Dec 10 2024, 9:30 am Appellant-Defendant CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals v. and Tax Court

State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff

December 10, 2024 Court of Appeals Case No. 24A-CR-1441 Interlocutory Appeal from the Cass Superior Court The Honorable James Muehlhausen, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 09D01-2301-F6-21

Opinion from Judge Bradford Judges Bailey and Foley concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1441 | December 10, 2024 Page 1 of 4 Bradford, Judge.

Case Summary [1] The State has charged Edward Helvie, Jr., with several crimes and alleged that

he is a habitual offender. In April of 2024, Helvie attempted to plead guilty to

one of the charges against him without entering into a plea agreement. After

the State objected, and the trial court denied Helvie’s request. The trial court

certified the issue for interlocutory appeal, and we accepted jurisdiction. Helvie

contends that the trial court should have had the discretion to allow him to

plead guilty to fewer than all of the charges against him without the State’s

consent, while the State argues that Indiana Rule of Criminal Procedure

3.3(C)(1), which became effective on January 1, 2024, does not allow a trial

court such discretion. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On January 12, 2023, the State charged Helvie with Level 6 felony

methamphetamine possession, Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance,

Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, Class A misdemeanor interference with

the reporting of a crime, and Class C misdemeanor paraphernalia possession

and alleged that he is a habitual offender. On April 25, 2024, Helvie attempted,

without a plea agreement, to plead guilty to domestic battery and proceed to

trial on the remaining charges. The State objected on the basis that Criminal

Rule 3.3(C)(1) prevents a defendant from pleading guilty to fewer than all of the

charges against him in the absence of a plea agreement. On May 9, 2024, the

trial court denied Helvie’s request to plead guilty to fewer than all of the charges

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1441 | December 10, 2024 Page 2 of 4 against him. The trial court certified the matter for interlocutory appeal, and

we accepted jurisdiction.

Discussion and Decision [3] Helvie contends that the trial court had the discretion to accept his guilty plea to

a subset of the charges against him, while the State argues that it did not. To

dispose of this claim, we must evaluate the provisions of Criminal Rule

3.3(C)(1), which has not been done by an Indiana appellate court.

When construing a statute, our primary goal is to ascertain the legislature’s intent. Walczak v. Labor Works–Ft. Wayne LLC, 983 N.E.2d 1146, 1154 (Ind. 2013). To discern that intent, we look first to the statutory language and give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of statutory terms. Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258, 1265 (Ind. 2015). Where the language is clear and unambiguous, there is “no room for judicial construction.” St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Steele, 766 N.E.2d 699, 704 (Ind. 2002).

Jackson v. State, 50 N.E.3d 767, 772 (Ind. 2016).

[4] Criminal Rule 3.3(C)(1) provides, in part, that a “defendant may plead guilty to

all charged offenses without a plea agreement or to at least one of the charged

offenses pursuant to a plea agreement negotiated with the state.” The rule does

not specifically address a situation where, as here, the defendant wishes to plead

guilty to fewer than all of the charges absent an agreement with the State. Id.

Helvie would have us interpret this omission as permissive. It is well-settled,

however, that “[w]hen certain items or words are specified or enumerated in a

statute then, by implication, other items or words not so specified or

enumerated are excluded.” State v. Willits, 773 N.E.2d 808, 813 (Ind. 2002)

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1441 | December 10, 2024 Page 3 of 4 (citations omitted). Consequently, Criminal Rule 3.3(C)(1)’s failure to mention

the scenario presented by this case means that it is excluded, not permitted.

[5] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Bailey, J., and Foley, J., concur.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Mark K. Leeman Leeman Law Offices Logansport, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Courtney Staton Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1441 | December 10, 2024 Page 4 of 4