Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
Sep 03 2014, 7:23 am
court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
DAVID HOOKER GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Michigan City, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
J.T. WHITEHEAD
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
DAVID HOOKER, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 82A01-1311-CR-523
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE VANDERBURGH CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Kelli E. Fink, Magistrate
Cause No. 82C01-0109-CF-816
September 3, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAKER, Judge
David Hooker appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to vacate a guilty plea
he entered into in 2001. Finding no error, we affirm.
On September 12, 2001, the State charged Hooker with class B felony burglary
and class D felony theft. On November 2, 2001, Hooker pleaded guilty to class C felony
burglary in exchange for dismissal of the theft count. The trial court sentenced Hooker to
a four-year term, which he has served and completed.
On June 8, 2006, the State charged Hooker with new, separate offenses. On
December 20, 2006, a jury convicted Hooker of class A felony robbery resulting in
serious bodily injury and class A felony battery by means of a deadly weapon. The trial
court later adjudged Hooker to be an habitual offender. On February 8, 2007, the trial
court sentenced Hooker to thirty years for robbery, declined to enter judgment on the
battery count because the same facts supported each conviction, and sentenced Hooker to
an additional thirty years for being an habitual offender.
On October 21, 2013, Hooker filed a motion to withdraw his 2001 guilty plea and
vacate that conviction. The trial court denied the motion, and Hooker now appeals.
On appeal, Hooker argues that the trial court should have explained to him in 2001
that his guilty plea could later form the basis for an habitual offender finding, should he
continue committing crimes. First, we note that the trial court made all proper
advisements of Hooker’s rights at the guilty plea hearing. Included among those
advisements was a statement that prior adult convictions can result in either consecutive
or longer sentences. Appellant’s App. p. 6. Second, we note that the trial court was not
2
required to look into a crystal ball to predict that Hooker would continue his life of crime
and advise him accordingly.1 Finally, we note the well-established rule of law that a
guilty plea may only be withdrawn before the sentence is imposed. Ind. Code § 35-35-1-
4(b). Hooker waited until his sentence had been fully served and he was six years into
another, unrelated sentence, to raise this issue. It is simply too late.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
KIRSCH, J., and ROBB, J., concur.
1
Indeed, we note that if the trial court had a crystal ball, the most prudent advisement to Hooker would
have been to refrain from committing the crimes in the first place.
3