Beck v. State
| Decision Date | 09 December 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 30001,30001 |
| Citation | 241 Ind. 237,170 N.E.2d 661 |
| Parties | Crate BECK, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Barrie C. Tremper, Fort Wayne, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Richard C. Johnson, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The State of Indiana, by the Attorney General, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, or in the alternative, that the judgment be affirmed on the ground that the amended motion for a new trial was filed too late to present any alleged error set forth therein. The record shows that the appellant was found guilty by the trial court and its finding and decision was rendered on April 21, 1960; that on May 2nd the appellant filed a motion for a new trial on the general ground:
Thereafter a pleading entitled 'Amended Motion for a New Trial' was filed on May 25, 1960 on the ground:
Appellant filed his brief and an examination reveals that the only question urged is that the appellant was inadequately represented by counsel (as specified in the 'Amended Motion for a New Trial'). No citations, authorities or statutes are presented therein in support of the argument in accordance with Rule 2-17 of this court. Burns' § 9-1903 provides in part:
'The motion for a new trial and the causes therefor shall be in writing and must be filed within thirty days from the date of the verdict or finding; * * *.' (Our italics.)
The 'Amended Motion for a New Trial' upon which the sole alleged error is predicated was not filed within the time fixed by the statute. Murley v. State, Ind.1960, 168 N.E.2d 205.
The sole assignment of errors is the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial.
Appellant contends that a belated motion for a new trial may be entertained. No showing is made in that respect and we do not have such a question presented to us in this case. Sutton v. State, Ind.1960, 166 N.E.2d 651; Blanton v. State, 1955, 234 Ind. 142, 124 N.E.2d 382.
Pursuant to Anderson v. State, 1950, 228 Ind. 491, 93 N.E.2d 201, the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunter v. Hunter, 568
...205 (1960); Bush v. State, 246 Ind. 574, 207 N.E.2d 625 (1965); Powell v. State, 247 Ind. 47, 211 N.E.2d 177 (1965); Beck v. State, 241 Ind. 237, 170 N.E.2d 661 (1960); Barker v. State, 244 Ind. 267, 191 N.E.2d 9 (1963); and Johnson v. State, 247 Ind. 148, 213 N.E.2d 469 (1966), are all cas......
-
White v. Livengood
...raised in the second Motion to Correct Errors and confine our attention to the first Motion to Correct Errors. See Beck v. State (1961), 241 Ind. 237, 170 N.E.2d 661; Sutton v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 512, 166 N.E.2d 651; Lines v. Browning (1973), 156 Ind.App. 185, 295 N.E.2d 853; Matthew v.......
-
Johnson v. State
...Sec. 9-1903, supra, there is nothing before this Court as to the matters urged in the 'Amended Motion for New Trial'.' Beck v. State (1961), 241 Ind. 237, 170 N.E.2d 661; Murley, Conklin v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 655, 168 N.E.2d 205; Anderson v. State (1950), 228 Ind. 491, 93 N.E.2d 201. We......