# Wells v. State

> Indiana Court of Appeals · October 31, 2005 · 836 N.E.2d 475

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9703521

## Case

- **Full name:** Stephen Lewis WELLS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** October 31, 2005
- **Citations:** 836 N.E.2d 475; 2005 Ind. App. LEXIS 2034; 2005 WL 2840289
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Riley
- **Judges:** Baker, Mathias, Riley
- **Cited by:** 75 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9703521

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that a guilty plea is not necessarily a showing of remorse and “does not rise to the level of significant mitigation where the defendant has received a substantial benefit from the plea or where the evidence against him is such that the decision to plead guilty is mere…
- explaining that “a guilty plea does not rise to the level of significant mitigation where the defendant has received a substantial benefit from the plea or where the evidence against him is such that the decision to plead guilty is merely a pragmatic one”
- concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion where the defendant had charges dismissed and the evidence against the defendant was such that his decision to plead guilty was a pragmatic decision
- holding that there was no abuse of discretion where the trial court did not accord mitigating weight to the defendant's guilty plea where the defendant's decision to plead guilty was pragmatic
- holding that a guilty plea does not rise to the level of significant mitigation where the evidence against the defendant is such that the decision to plead guilty is merely a pragmatic one

## Opinion text

RILEY, Judge,
dissenting with separate opinion.
I respectfully dissent from the majority's conclusion to remand the case to the trial court for correction of the clerical error in the plea agreement with regard to the missing HTV charge so as to accurately reflect the intent of the parties. Op. p. 478. While I agree with the majority to the extent that a mistake has been made, I am mindful that,
[a] plea agreement is a contract, an explicit agreement between the State and the defendant which is binding upon both parties when accepted by the trial court. Because a plea agreement is a contract, the principles of contract law can provide guidance in the consideration of plea agreements. The primary goal of contract interpretation is to give *481 effect of the parties' intent. When the terms of the contract are clear and unambiguous, they are conclusive of that intent, and the court will not construe the contract or look to extrinsic evidence. Rather we will merely apply the contractual provisions.
Griffin v. State, 756 N.E.2d 572, 574 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), reh'g demied, trans. denied (emphasis added). Here, the written terms of the modified plea agreement filed on March 7, 2005, provide both in the caption and in clause 1 that "[ Wells] will plead guilty to the charge(s) of: [causing serious bodily injury when operating a vehicle while intoxicated] and the State will dismiss __ court to sentence." (Appellant's App. p. 29). Accordingly, the plea agreement that was accepted by the trial court unequivocally and unambiguously states that Wells is only pleading guilty to Count I. Even though the terms of the modified plea agreement are clear and thus conclusive of the parties' intent; nevertheless, the majority, at the urging of the State, looked beyond the face of the agreement and considered extrinsic evidence in reaching its conclusion.
Thus, in light of the evidence before me, I respectfully part ways with the majority by recommending to vacate Wells' sentence and remand with instructions that a new sentence be crafted within the parameters of the terms of the written modified plea agreement and the law.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9703521. Public record. Not legal advice.