Fancher v. State
| Decision Date | 23 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-281A44,2-281A44 |
| Citation | 436 N.E.2d 311 |
| Parties | Damon FANCHER, Joey Fancher, Donald Logsden (sic), Ronald Cross, Appellants (Defendants Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Lawrence O. Sells, Indianapolis, for appellants.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Thomas D. Quigley, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Damon Fancher, Joey Fancher, Donald Logsden (sic), and Ronald Cross were convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter in a joint trial. Their appeals were disposed of in an unpublished unanimous memorandum decision of the Court of Appeals, Fourth District, No. 2-281 A 44, filed December 28, 1981. 435 N.E.2d 322. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of Joey Fancher, Logsden (sic) and Cross and dismissed the appeal as to Damon Fancher because the praecipe had been filed thirty-one (31) days after the trial court overruled his Motion to Correct Errors, citing Ind.R.App.P. 2(A). State v. Lipp, (1980) Ind.App., 404 N.E.2d 64.
The cause is before us upon the Petition to Transfer of Defendant-Appellant Damon Fancher, who prays that we decide the merits of his appeal.
Defendant by trial counsel filed a timely Motion To Correct Errors on October 20, 1980, which the trial court overruled on October 21, 1980. The averments in the joint Motion To Correct Errors of Joey Fancher and Donald Logsden state that Damon Fancher lost confidence in his trial attorney in the middle of the trial. The attorney, who represents Fancher on appeal, unsuccessfully attempted to enter an appearance for Fancher in the middle of the trial. Thereafter on November 18, 1980, appellate counsel filed a "Supplemental Motion To Correct Errors" on behalf of Ronald Cross and Damon Fancher, which the trial court overruled on November 20, 1980. This supplemental motion sought to raise additional assignments of error as well as to address issues allegedly not raised with sufficient specificity in the first motion. 1 This motion was filed within sixty (60) days of the judgment of conviction.
Appellate counsel filed a praecipe on behalf of all four defendants on November 21, 1980, thirty-one (31) days after the trial court had overruled Fancher's first motion to correct errors.
Fancher argues that the Court of Appeals' dismissal conflicts with VerHulst v. Hoffman, (1972) 153 Ind.App. 64, 70, 286 N.E.2d 214, 218 (trans. denied), which allows for the amendment of the motion to correct errors within the sixty (60) day time limit of Ind.R.Tr.P. 59(C), and Duarte v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 396 N.E.2d 693, which states:
"The filing of supplemental or subsequent motions after the procedural time limitation for filing a motion to correct errors has expired is not provided for under our appellate or post-conviction rules, see VerHulst v. Hoffman, (1972) 153 Ind.App. 64, 286 N.E.2d 214, and will not alter or extend the time within which the praecipe and record of proceedings must be filed." Id. at 695.
Neither VerHulst nor Duarte treated a situation in which the trial court had overruled a timely Motion To Correct Errors and in response thereto a party had filed an additional motion to supplement the first motion or a motion to reconsider the first. A motion to reconsider or to rehear a motion to correct errors does not extend the time for taking an appeal. Mohney v. State, (1974) 159 Ind.App. 246, 249-50, 306 N.E.2d 387, 390 (cases cited therein) (Trans. denied). This rule is a corollary of the general principle that Ind.R.Tr.P. 59 contemplates only one Motion to Correct Errors per appellant. P-M Gas & Wash Co., Inc. v. Smith, (1978) 268 Ind. 297, 306, 375 N.E.2d 592, 596; Ralston v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 412 N.E.2d 239, 245 (trans. denied). Once a timely Motion To Correct Errors has been denied, the time for perfecting an appeal begins to run. However, an exception arises if the trial court responds to such Motion by amending, modifying, or altering its original judgment, rather...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Naked City, Inc. v. State
...than April 12, 1982. Under Indiana law the motion could be amended or supplemented until that date, but not thereafter. Fancher v. State (1982), Ind., 436 N.E.2d 311; Junigan v. State (1982), Ind.App., 443 N.E.2d 325; VerHulst v. Hoffman (1972), 153 Ind.App. 64, 286 N.E.2d 214. The rule has......
-
Stone v. State
...could not be permitted to revive his right to appeal from the court's judgment entered on April 10, 1981. See, e.g., Fancher v. State, (1982) Ind., 436 N.E.2d 311, where our supreme court recognized that the time for taking an appeal is not extended by the filing of a repetitive motion such......
-
State v. Kleman
...filed its motion to correct errors and this appeal followed. Pursuant to Indiana Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 59(F) and Fancher v. State (1982), Ind., 436 N.E.2d 311, the state could have simply appealed the order granting Kleman's motion to correct errors. It did not do so. According to ......
-
Wente v. State
...Morgan Co. REMC v. PSCI (1970), 253 Ind. 541, 255 N.E.2d 822. 1 Regarding the harshness of dismissing Wente's appeal see Fancher v. State (1982), Ind., 436 N.E.2d 311, in which the criminal appeal was dismissed because the praecipe was filed one day ...