MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any May 25 2017, 8:59 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Brian A. Karle Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Ball Eggleston, PC Attorney General
Lafayette, Indiana
Ellen H. Meilaender
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jacquez I. Lewis, May 25, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
79A04-1610-CR-2529
v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Steven P. Meyer,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
79D02-1505-F5-29
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1610-CR-2529 | May 25, 2017 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Jacquez I. Lewis pled guilty by plea agreement to level 5 felony dealing in a
narcotic drug, level 6 felony cocaine possession, and class A misdemeanor false
informing. On appeal, he contends that his guilty plea was involuntarily
entered and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request to
withdraw it. Finding that he is precluded from challenging the voluntariness of
his guilty plea on direct appeal and that the trial court acted within its discretion
in denying his request to withdraw his guilty plea, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] The State charged Lewis with three counts of level 5 felony dealing in narcotics
and three counts of level 6 felony narcotics possession, stemming from three
separate instances in which he sold narcotics to an undercover police detective.
To facilitate a plea agreement involving these charges and charges from two
other pending cases involving Lewis, the State added one count of level 6 felony
cocaine possession and one count of class A misdemeanor false informing.
Pursuant to the plea agreement, Lewis pled guilty to one count of level 5 felony
dealing in narcotics, level 6 felony cocaine possession, and class A
misdemeanor false informing. The State dismissed the remaining charges.
[3] At his guilty plea hearing, Lewis withdrew his previous plea of not guilty and
entered a guilty plea. The trial court questioned him to ensure that he
understood the legal effects of signing the plea agreement, which included
giving up his rights to a jury trial, to call and cross-examine witnesses, to the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1610-CR-2529 | May 25, 2017 Page 2 of 6
presumption of innocence, and to appeal his convictions. Lewis acknowledged
that his plea was freely and voluntarily made and that he was satisfied with his
court-appointed counsel. The court examined him to establish a factual basis
for each of the offenses, and Lewis admitted to the material elements and
allegations of each. The trial court accepted the guilty plea and set the case for
sentencing.
[4] Two months later, Lewis sent the trial court pro se letters complaining about his
court-appointed counsel and stating his desire to spend more time with his
family.1 The trial court treated Lewis’s letters as requests to withdraw his guilty
plea. At sentencing, the trial court determined that Lewis had not followed the
proper procedure for submitting a request to withdraw a guilty plea.
Notwithstanding, the court examined Lewis and found that he had not met his
burden of establishing a sufficient basis to withdraw his guilty plea. The court
entered judgment of conviction pursuant to Lewis’s plea agreement and
sentenced him to an aggregate eight-year term.
[5] Lewis now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
1
Lewis’s handwritten letter requesting guilty plea withdrawal is included in his appendix, along with several
other handwritten letters. However, the quality of the copy makes the letter difficult to read. Appellant’s
App. Vol. 2 at 44.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1610-CR-2529 | May 25, 2017 Page 3 of 6
Discussion and Decision
Section 1 – Lewis is precluded from challenging the
voluntariness of his guilty plea on direct appeal.
[6] Lewis asserts that his guilty plea was not voluntarily entered. A challenge to
the knowing and voluntary nature of a guilty plea cannot be undertaken on
direct appeal. Stringer v. State, 899 N.E.2d 748, 750 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009); see
also Tumulty v. State, 666 N.E.2d 394, 396 (Ind. 1996) (postconviction relief, not
direct appeal, is “the vehicle for pursuing claims for validity of guilty pleas”).
Therefore, we may not consider Lewis’s claim.
Section 2 – The trial court acted within its discretion in
denying Lewis’s unverified request to withdraw his guilty
plea.
[7] Lewis also maintains that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his
request to withdraw his guilty plea. Indiana Code Section 35-35-1-4 addresses
motions to withdraw guilty pleas, stating in pertinent part,
(b) After entry of a plea of guilty … but before imposition of
sentence, the court may allow the defendant by motion to
withdraw his pleas of guilty … for any fair and just reason unless
the state has been substantially prejudiced by reliance upon the
defendant’s plea. The motion to withdraw the plea of guilty …
made under this subsection shall be in writing and verified. The
motion shall state facts in support of the relied demanded, and
the state may file counter-affidavits in opposition to the motion.
The ruling of the court on the motion shall be reviewable on
appeal only for an abuse of discretion. However, the court shall
allow the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty … whenever
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1610-CR-2529 | May 25, 2017 Page 4 of 6
the defendant proves that withdrawal of the plea is necessary to
correct a manifest injustice.
(Emphasis added.) A trial court’s ruling on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea
“arrives in this Court with a presumption in favor of the ruling,” and we will
reverse only where the trial court has abused its discretion. Brightman v. State,
758 N.E.2d 41, 44 (Ind. 2001).
[8] First, and most obviously, Lewis’s letter seeking plea withdrawal was
unverified. As such, he has failed to comply with the statute and has waived
this issue for review. See Carter v. State, 739 N.E.2d 126, 128 n.3 (Ind. 2000) (“A
defendant’s failure to submit a verified, written motion to withdraw a guilty
plea generally results in waiver of the issue of wrongful denial of the request.”).
Even so, his pro se letter merely states as grounds for guilty plea withdrawal his
desire to spend more time with his family and his counsel’s lack of helpfulness.
Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 44. At the sentencing hearing, Lewis said that he
wanted to spend more time with his family and wanted to hire an attorney to
review his case, to which the court responded, in pertinent part,
Mr. Lewis[,] you have been provided the opportunity for counsel
through the Public Defender’s office and Mr. Little is [a] capable
and able attorney who has represented you in this matter. At the
time of the entry of the plea you had indicated in the written plea
agreement that you were satisfied with the services of your
attorney and that you believed that he is properly representing
you …. I’ve heard nothing from you … to give the court reason
to believe that the plea was entered improperly or against your
will. The argument that you would like to spend time with your
family I understand, everyone in jail would like to … be out and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1610-CR-2529 | May 25, 2017 Page 5 of 6
spend time with their family. However, that is not a compelling
enough reason for me to allow you to withdraw you[r] plea …
You were given an opportunity … not to enter your plea, but you
voluntarily entered the plea and you waived all your rights. I
don’t see anything that you presented here today that would
indicate to me that it would … be manifestly unjust to deny …
your motion and I don’t have any reason to believe that you have
not been properly represented in this matter. Therefore, the court
is going to deny your request to withdraw the plea[.]
Tr. at 28-30. We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that Lewis’s reasons
were neither compelling nor indicative of manifest injustice.
[9] In short, Lewis waived the issue of wrongful denial of his request to withdraw
his guilty plea by failing to submit a verified request and, even when afforded
the opportunity to testify on the matter during sentencing, failed to present any
grounds compelling the grant of his request to withdraw his guilty plea. As
such, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of his request to
withdraw his guilty plea. Consequently, we affirm.
[10] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1610-CR-2529 | May 25, 2017 Page 6 of 6
Jacquez I. Lewis v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion