Barker v. State

CourtIndiana Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtACHOR; LANDIS
CitationBarker v. State, 175 N.E.2d 353, 242 Ind. 5 (Ind. 1961)
Decision Date13 June 1961
Docket NumberNo. 30083,30083
PartiesRoland E. BARKER, Appellant v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

William C. Erbecker, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Richard M. Givan, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

ACHOR, Judge.

This is an original action in which petitioner asks permission to file a belated appeal.

This court has heretofore held that in order to sustain a motion for a belated appeal, the following essential elements must be made to appear: One. There must be cause shown to excuse the delay in perfecting a timely appeal and, two, that he has a prima facie meritorious cause for appeal. State ex rel. Casey v. Murray, 1952, 231 Ind. 74, 77, 106 N.E.2d 911.

In this case the attorney for petitioner, as excuse for his failure to perfect a timely appeal, asserts that he was engrossed with other matters of business and that he honestly believes that the motion for new trial was overruled by the trial court on a date subsequent to the date of actual ruling thereon. The mere misunderstanding of counsel as to the law or the facts regarding the time available for appeal is not sufficient cause for granting a belated appeal. See cases cited in Flanagan, Wiltrout & Hamilton's Indiana Trial and Appellate Practice § 2475, p. 20, Comment 2.

Furthermore, in this petition the appellant sets forth no facts with regard to the merits of an appeal except to state: 'Your affiant petitioner respectfully says that the evidence in the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
7 cases
  • State v. Foy
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • March 19, 2007
    ...See, e.g., Eggers v. Wright, 253 Ind. 44, 245 N.E.2d 331 (1969); Deckard v. State, 241 Ind. 338, 170 N.E.2d 424 (1961); Barker v. State, 242 Ind. 5, 175 N.E.2d 353 (1961). Former Supreme Court R. 2-2, however, is not sufficiently analogous to control the resolution of this issue because: (1......
  • Eggers v. Wright
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • March 12, 1969
    ...that miscalculations and mistakes on the part of the attorney are not sufficient grounds for a belated appeal. Barker v. State, supra (242 Ind. 5, 175 N.E.2d 353); Deckard v. State, supra (241 Ind. 338, 170 N.E.2d 424). Were it otherwise, the time limitation of Rule 2--2 of the Rules of the......
  • Victor v. State, 30786
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • March 9, 1966
    ...911; Kirkland v. State (1956), 235 Ind. 450, 134 N.E.2d 223; Deckard v. State (1960), 241 Ind. 338, 170 N.E.2d 424; Barker v. State (1961), 242 Ind. 5, 175 N.E.2d 353. We do not believe that the petition filed in this case contains either sufficient excuse for the delay, or a prima facie sh......
  • Johnson v. State, 30923
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • March 22, 1966
    ...a prima facie meritorious cause for appeal. State ex rel. Casey v. Murray, 1952, 231 Ind. 74, 77, 106 N.E.2d 911.' Barker v. State (1961), 242 Ind. 5, 6, 175 N.E.2d 353. See also Deckard v. State (1961), 241 Ind. 338, 170 N.E.2d It is well established that miscalculations and mistakes on th......
  • Get Started for Free