Fields v. State
Citation | 179 Ind.App. 421,386 N.E.2d 184 |
Decision Date | 20 February 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 1-378A61,1-378A61 |
Parties | Wilson FIELDS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Wilson Fields, Jr., pro se.
Defendant-appellant Wilson Fields, Jr. (Fields) has filed his petition for rehearing, Pro se, to which plaintiff-appellee State of Indiana (State) has filed no response.
This court filed its memorandum opinion October 17, 1978, affirming Fields' convictions of operating a vehicle on a public highway without displaying a vehicle inspection sticker, fleeing from a police officer, and driving recklessly.
A party may raise in his petition for rehearing only those issues which were presented at the first hearing but overlooked or improperly decided. Stucker v. College Life Ins. Co., (1965) 139 Ind.App. 422, 211 N.E.2d 320.
In his petition for rehearing, Fields challenges certain events which occurred after we filed our opinion October 17, 1978. Having carefully considered the nature of the issue which he presents and the result of the events which he challenges, we deem it appropriate to respond to Fields' argument rather than question the procedure he has invoked for presenting it. 1
After this court affirmed Fields' convictions, the Public Defender (who represented Fields in bringing his appeal in this court) advised him that no basis could be found for pursuing the appeal further. Fields demanded continued representation so that he could appeal to the Supreme Court of Indiana and to the Supreme Court of the United States if necessary.
The Public Defender filed a petition for instruction seeking the advice of the trial court as to whether or not the Public Defender had a duty to continue representing Fields when the Public Defender could find no meritorious arguments to present in pursuing appeals to courts of higher authority. The trial court informed the Public Defender that, pursuant to Ross v. Moffitt, (1974) 417 U.S. 600, 94 S.Ct. 2437, 41 L.Ed.2d 341, the Public Defender was not obligated to continue representing Fields.
Because the trial court was without jurisdiction of the cause at the time it ruled on the Public Defender's petition, 2 we must agree with Fields that the trial court erred.
The key issue remains, however: Is Wilson Fields entitled to receive continued representation by an attorney provided Fields without cost to him so that Fields can pursue appeals to the Supreme Court of Indiana and to the Supreme Court of the United States after this Court of Appeals has affirmed the convictions entered by the trial court and after the Public Defender has reached the conclusion that appeals taken to courts of higher authority will be fruitless?
In State ex rel. White v. Hilgemann, (1941) 218 Ind. 572, 34 N.E.2d 129, our Supreme Court considered the right of a defendant in a criminal action to have counsel provided for perfecting and prosecuting an appeal. Our Supreme Court reasoned:
* * * " 3
In Ross v. Moffitt, (1974) 417 U.S. 600, 94 S.Ct. 2437, 41 L.Ed.2d 341, the Supreme Court of the United States responded to Moffitt's demand that he be provided counsel to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court of North Carolina after the Court of Appeals of that state had affirmed his conviction. Justice Rehnquist wrote:
4 (Our insertions)
In the case at bar, Fields was provided the assistance of counsel in bringing his appeal to this court; and this court affirmed his convictions after carefully considering each argument presented. Fields has a transcript from the proceedings in the trial court, a brief...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pica v. St. Joseph Cnty. Prob. Dep't
...v. Edwards, 563 N.E.2d 595, 600 (Ind. 1990); City of Indianapolis v. Wynn, 239 Ind. 567, 159 N.E.2d 572, 582 (1959); Fields v. State, 179 Ind. App. 421, 425, 386 N.E.2d 184, 186 (1979) (opinion on rehearing). The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer on March 25, 2010 (DE 19-2 at 4). Althou......
-
Powers v. State
...jurisdiction to amend sentence where appellate process regarding conviction was not yet complete); Fields v. State (1979), 179 Ind.App. 421, 423, n. 2, 386 N.E.2d 184, 185, n. 2, trans. denied (appellate tribunal retains jurisdiction of a cause until after the time has expired for the filin......
-
Lht Capital, LLC. v. Indiana Horse Racing
...Brief at 16. LHT attempts to change its argument on rehearing, which it is not permitted to do. See, e.g., Fields v. State, 179 Ind.App. 421, 425, 386 N.E.2d 184, 186 (1979) (holding that any issue raised for the first time in a petition for rehearing is B. Legality and Constitutionality. I......