Opinion
24A-CR-102
09-04-2024
Luis Antonio Lopez Aleman, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Brian A. Karle, Ball Eggleston, PC Lafayette, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Megan M. Smith, Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Cass Superior Court The Honorable Lisa L. Swaim, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 09D02-2108-F2-12
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Brian A. Karle, Ball Eggleston, PC Lafayette, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Megan M. Smith, Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Weissmann, Judge.
[¶1] After pleading guilty to Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Luis Lopez Aleman moved to withdraw his guilty plea claiming it was neither knowing nor voluntary. The trial court denied the motion, and Aleman appeals. We find no manifest injustice or abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision and affirm.
Appellant is identified varyingly throughout the record as "Lopez," "Aleman," "Lopez Aleman," and "Lopez-Aleman." We follow his Appellant's Brief in using the name "Aleman."
Facts
[¶2] The State charged Aleman with four crimes: Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine; Level 5 and Level 6 felony possession of cocaine; and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. On the eve of his jury trial, Aleman agreed to plead guilty to the Level 2 felony dealing charge in exchange for a 15-year sentence and the State's dismissal of the other charges.
[¶3] The parties also entered into a written stipulation of the factual basis supporting Aleman's guilty plea. That stipulation provided in pertinent part:
1. The defendant Luis Aleman had been in the business of dealing drugs, specifically methamphetamine for some time prior to August 24, 2021. In the course of the dealing drugs (sic) he became acquainted with Anjelica Kassa, a codefendant in this matter .... Their relationship was both related to drug dealing and sexual in nature.
2. On August 24, 2021[,] at the request of defendant Kassa, defendant Aleman drove Kassa from Indianapolis, Indiana to Logansport for the specific purpose of delivering methamphetamine. Aleman and Kassa discussed this in electronic messages and in person during the drive, during which they stopped to purchase an item from a local store which Aleman knows to be commonly used to "cut" or dilute illegal substances.
3. Aleman drove a 2009 Maroon GMC Sierra pickup truck with Kassa to Logansport on the above referenced day to the address of 225 W. Linden Ave., Logansport, IN, which is the address of codefendant Jose Zuniga . . . . At that address, both Kassa and Aleman entered the residence to deliver a pound of methamphetamine.
4. In the same truck was a quantity of methamphetamine of approximately 44 grams, over which both Kassa and Aleman had the intent and ability to exercise dominion and control. They intended to deal both the methamphetamine that was actually delivered to Zuniga that day as well as the 44 grams which remained in the truck.App. Vol. p. 179.
[¶4] The trial court held a guilty plea hearing, during which it approved the parties' plea agreement and accepted Aleman's guilty plea. The court then set the matter for a sentencing hearing. But before sentencing could occur, Aleman moved to withdraw his guilty plea as not knowing or voluntary. The trial court denied his motion after a hearing. Then, pursuant to Aleman's plea agreement, the court sentenced him to 15 years in prison and dismissed the remaining charges. Aleman appeals only the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Discussion and Decision
[¶5] After a guilty plea is entered, but before sentence is imposed, the trial court "may allow" the defendant to withdraw their guilty plea for "any fair and just reason unless the state has been substantially prejudiced by reliance upon the defendant's plea." Ind. Code § 35-35-1-4(b). However, the court "shall allow" the defendant to withdraw their guilty plea "whenever the defendant proves that withdrawal of the plea is necessary to correct a manifest injustice." Id. Absent a showing of manifest injustice, the decision whether to grant or deny the motion rests solely in the trial court's discretion. Ind. Code § 35-35-1-4(b). "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." Brightman v. State, 758 N.E.2d 41, 44 (Ind. 2001) (internal quotation omitted).
I. No Manifest Injustice
[¶6] Aleman argues that the trial court was required to permit withdrawal of his guilty plea because withdrawal was necessary to correct a manifest injustice. The injustice, according to Aleman, arose from the fact that he did not knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty. See Jeffries v. State, 966 N.E.2d 773, 778 (Ind.Ct.App. 2012) (observing that manifest injustice occurs when a guilty plea is not knowing or voluntary). Aleman asserts that the State pressured him into pleading guilty by offering the plea deal on the eve of trial and giving him only one hour to accept it. He also contends a language barrier caused confusion throughout the guilty plea process, noting that he primarily speaks Spanish, the plea agreement and factual basis stipulation were written in English, and he required an interpreter at his guilty plea hearing. We are not persuaded.
[¶7] A defendant bears the burden of proving manifest injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind. Code § 35-35-1-4(b). At the hearing on Aleman's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, Aleman testified through his interpreter that he understood "a lot" of English. Tr. Vol. II, p. 17. He also confirmed that he comprehended "everything" that was happening at the hearing. Id. Though the plea agreement was written in English, Aleman acknowledged that it was interpreted in Spanish for him before he signed it. He further testified that he had reviewed the agreement with his attorney and understood its terms. Moreover, the State summarized the terms of the agreement during the hearing, and Aleman expressly agreed with the State's summary.
[¶8] As for the factual basis stipulation, Aleman testified at his guilty plea hearing that he had reviewed the stipulation with his attorney and the facts therein were true. He also confirmed the truth of the stipulated facts when the State asked him about each one individually. And though he would later claim he felt pressured to plead guilty by the timing of and deadline for accepting the State's plea offer, Aleman testified that he had not been forced or threatened to plead guilty and that his plea was his "own free choice and voluntary act." Id. at 22.
[¶9] A preponderance of the evidence shows that Aleman's guilty plea was both knowing and voluntary. Therefore, he failed to prove withdrawal of his plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice.
II. No Abuse of Discretion
[¶10] Aleman next argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea because he had a valid defense to the State's dealing in methamphetamine charge. The State's case seemingly relied, at least in part, on statements made by codefendant Kassa as to Aleman's knowledge that, when he drove Kassa to Logansport, it was for the purpose of delivering methamphetamine to codefendant Zuniga. According to Aleman, Kassa's statements on this issue were inconsistent and provided an avenue for attacking her credibility at trial. Aleman claims this defense presented a fair and just reason to permit withdrawal of his guilty plea. But again, we are not persuaded.
[¶11] An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Gross v. State, 22 N.E.3d 863, 869 (Ind.Ct.App. 2014). At the hearing on Aleman's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, Aleman identified a single occasion when Kassa denied that Aleman knew he was driving her to Logansport to deliver methamphetamine. Kassa made that statement to police at the time of her arrest, and it was included in the probable cause affidavit when Aleman was charged with dealing in methamphetamine. Thus, Aleman should have been aware of Kassa's statement at the time he pleaded guilty. He does not contend otherwise.
[¶12] Given these facts and circumstances, we find no error in the trial court's decision to deny Aleman's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
[¶13] Affirmed.
Vaidik, J., and Foley, J., concur.