Etheridge v. State, 29811
| Decision Date | 01 March 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 29811,29811 |
| Citation | 240 Ind. 384,164 N.E.2d 642 |
| Parties | Clarence Robert ETHERIDGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Cecil C. Tague, Sr., Roger H. Smith, Brookville, Charles V. Livengood, Robert L. Reinke, Richmond, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Owen S. Boling, Asst. Atty. Gen., Paul H. Frazier, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Wayne Circuit Court denying the petition of the appellant, Clarence Robert Etheridge, for a writ of error coram nobis. The appellant was originally tried in the Wayne Circuit Court on December 29, 1947 and was convicted of the offense of second degree murder. At the conclusion of that trial a motion for a new trial was filed, alleging, among other things, that the pauper attorney appointed by the court to represent the appellant was incompetent and that there was not sufficient time to prepare for a defense in the case before trial. The motion for new trial was overruled. No appeal was taken from the judgment rendered.
On February 1, 1954, appellant filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in the Wayne Circuit Court. He alleged in substance that the court-appointed attorney in his original trial was incompetent and that there was insufficient time to prepare for his defense and that he was denied his constitutional rights. An answer was filed by the prosecuting attorney stating in substance that the defendant fully understood the nature of the charge against him and was so informed; that counsel furnished him was fully competent and a member of the Bar of the State of Indiana; that, however, the defendant refused to consult with and advise with his counsel, although he had ample time to do so prior to the trial; that defendant refused to discuss and consult with his counsel, although counsel was present during the entire trial. The trial court denied the petition for writ of error coram nobis and no appeal was taken therefrom.
Thereafter again, on August 15, 1958, the appellant filed his 'amended verified petition for writ of error coram nobis'. Again the appellant alleged in substance that counsel appointed to represent him in his original trial was incompetent and that he did not have sufficient time to consult with attorneys and was denied his constitutional rights. Appellant also alleged that he was mentally ill, 'confused and unable to think clearly or reason logically' at the time of the trial and did not fully comprehend what was going on in court. The State filed an answer to the foregoing petition. After denying certain material allegations, a second paragraph of answer alleged that all matters raised in the amended verified petition for writ of error coram nobis had been previously fully and completely adjudicated by the court. The answer further specifically denied that the appellant was insane at the time of the original trial. We have before us an appeal from the second petition for writ of error coram nobis by the appellant.
All litigation must come to an end at some time. Where a trial has been had, as in this case, and a motion for a new trial filed which has been overruled and no appeal taken from the judgment, all matters of record which were adjudicated or could have been adjudicated within the issues (including a defense of insanity which might have been raised) are finally determined and all parties bound thereby. Principles of res judicata do not permit the repeated litigation of matters settled by a final judgment. 50 C.J.S. Judgments § 682, p. 128; 17 I.L.E. Judgment § 380, p. 416; 9 Ind. L.J., 187; Pelfree v. State, 1957, 237 Ind. 302, 145 N.E.2d 295.
This principle applies alike to criminal as well as to civil proceedings. 50 C.J.S. Judgments § 745a, p. 267; 17 I.L.E. Judgment § 373, p. 409; United States v. Kaadt, 7 Cir., 1948, 171 F.2d 600; United States v. DeAngelo, 3 Cir., 1943, 138 F.2d 466.
It follows that a petition for a writ of error coram nobis cannot be utilized to have a reconsideration of matters in issue and determined in a final judgment. Swain v. State, 1939, 215 Ind. 259, 18 N.E.2d 921; Fluty v. State, 1947, 224 Ind. 652, 71 N.E.2d 565; State ex rel. Cutsinger v. Spencer, 1941, 219 Ind. 148, 41 N.E.2d 601; State ex rel. Emmert v. Gentry, 1945, 223 Ind. 535, 62 N.E.2d 860, 161 A.L.R. 532.
The issue of rejection of counsel furnished a defendant and his refusal to cooperate with such counsel and whether a defendant as a result has been given a fair trial, has been before this court previously. In such ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker v. State
...397 U.S. 436, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469. Gasaway v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 241, 243, 231 N.E.2d 513, 514; Etheridge v. State, (1960) 240 Ind. 384, 387, 164 N.E.2d 642, 644. In Town of Flora v. Indiana Service Corp., (1944) 222 Ind. 253, 257, 53 N.E.2d 161, 163, we referred to the princi......
-
Brown v. State
...on the merits, and coram nobis proceedings cannot be used as a substitute for such an appeal or as a second appeal. Etheridge v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 384, 164 N.E.2d 642; Smith v. State (1958), 237 Ind. 532, 146 N.E.2d 86; Grecu v. State (1956), 235 Ind. 234, 131 N.E.2d This court clearly......
-
Barker v. State, 30312
...The principle of res judicata does not permit the repeated litigation of matters settled by a final judgment. Etheridge v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 384, 164 N.E.2d 642; 50 C.J.S. Judgments § 682, p. 128; 17 I.L.E., Judgments, § 380, p. 416; Pelfree v. State (1957), 237 Ind. 302, 145 N.E.2d It......
-
Gasaway v. State
...§ 441, p. 451. The doctrine is applicable, of course, to criminal proceedings as well as civil proceedings. Etheridge v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 384, 164 N.E.2d 642. In the case before us we do not have a formal judgment entered on the motion to suppress. It was, in fact, nothing more than a......