Bernard Johnson, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judges Altice and Foley concur.

Case Summary

[1] Bernard Johnson appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to Level 4 felony child molesting. Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The State charged Johnson with two counts of Level 1 felony child molesting and four counts of Level 4 felony child molesting, alleging that he engaged in various forms of sexual touching with his 10-year-old granddaughter. In early 2025, Johnson was evaluated by two psychologists at his attorney's request and was found competent to assist in his defense and stand trial. The day before a jury trial was set to begin in July 2025, the parties entered into a plea agreement under which Johnson would plead guilty to one count of Level 4 felony child molesting, the State would dismiss the other charges, and sentencing would be left to the discretion of the trial court. The trial court held a guilty-plea hearing the same day. Johnson initially indicated that he didn't know if he should plead guilty, even though he understood that he would be facing a much longer sentence if convicted at trial. He claimed that his head hurt, that he didn't “remember a lot of stuff,” and that he didn't understand what was happening. Tr. pp. 6-9. But after the court made clear that the jury trial would begin the next day and the State summarized the evidence that would be presented, Johnson said he wanted to go forward with the change of plea. He said he understood (1) the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty, (2) the sentencing range for a Level 4 felony, and (3) the other consequences of pleading guilty, including the obligation to register as a sex offender. When asked if he was pleading guilty because he wanted to and not just “to get it over with,” Johnson said yes. Tr. p. 23. And after the State provided the factual basis and the court asked Johnson if that was what happened, he said yes. The court accepted Johnson's guilty plea and scheduled a sentencing hearing.

[3] Before the sentencing hearing, Johnson moved to withdraw his guilty plea. He alleged that he “is unable to read and write” so his attorney had to read the plea agreement to him, he “did not realize the factual basis he was accepting as true,” he didn't knowingly commit the offense, and his plea was not “made knowingly and voluntarily.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 150. At the hearing on the motion, Johnson claimed that he had a headache at the time of the guilty-plea hearing and didn't remember pleading guilty. The trial court denied Johnson's motion and later sentenced him to 10 years in the Department of Correction.

[4] Johnson now appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Discussion and Decision

[5] A defendant may move to withdraw a guilty plea either before or after sentencing. Ind. Code § 35-35-1-4. Where, as here, the defendant files such a motion before sentencing, the trial court “may allow” withdrawal “for any fair and just reason unless the state has been substantially prejudiced by reliance upon the defendant's plea.” Id. at (b). But the court “shall” allow withdrawal if the defendant proves it is “necessary to correct a manifest injustice.” Id. The defendant has the burden of establishing the grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at (e). On appeal from the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, the defendant faces a “high hurdle” and a “presumption in favor of the ruling.” Coomer v. State, 652 N.E.2d 60, 62 (Ind. 1995). We will reverse the trial court's ruling only for an abuse of discretion. I.C. § 35-35-1-4(b).

[6] Johnson contends that withdrawal of the plea is necessary to correct a manifest injustice and that the trial court was therefore required to allow withdrawal. Specifically, he argues that he was “suffering from significant mental limits” when he pled guilty and that, as a result, his plea was not made “freely and knowingly.” Appellant's Br. p. 9. He cites statements he made at the guilty-plea hearing indicating that his head hurts all the time, he has trouble remembering things, he doesn't remember committing this offense, he doesn't understand the proceedings, and he didn't know if he should plead guilty.

[7] But as the State notes, the evidence as to Johnson's mental state at the guilty-plea hearing is conflicting. Several months before the hearing, Johnson was evaluated by psychologists and found competent to assist in his defense and stand trial. At the guilty-plea hearing, Johnson hesitated to go through with the plea for the reasons stated above, but when the court said that trial would start the next day and the State summarized the evidence it would present, he said he was ready to plead. He was asked if he understood the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty, the sentencing range for a Level 4 felony, and the other consequences of pleading guilty, including the obligation to register as a sex offender, and he said yes. He was asked if he was pleading guilty because he wanted to, not just to get the case over with, and he said yes. He was asked if he agreed with the factual basis provided by the State, and he said yes. All this evidence directly contradicted Johnson's claims that didn't understand what was happening or what he was doing at the guilty-plea hearing. We will not disturb a trial court's ruling on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea where the evidence is conflicting. McGraw v. State, 938 N.E.2d 1218, 1220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. We therefore affirm the denial of Johnson's motion.

[8] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Altice, J., and Foley, J., concur.