Ford v. State, 3-278A51
| Decision Date | 30 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-278A51,3-278A51 |
| Citation | 390 N.E.2d 676,180 Ind.App. 673 |
| Parties | Nathaniel FORD, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Harriette Bailey Conn, Public Defender, Kyle M. Payne, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Jane M. Gootee, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Nathaniel Ford was convicted of robbery and was sentenced for an indeterminate period of from ten (10) to twenty-five (25) years. On appeal from his conviction Ford claimed violation of Ind.Rules of Procedure, Criminal Rule 4(A) (pre-1973 amended version). In Ford v. State (1975), Ind.App., 332 N.E.2d 221, we held that no CR. 4(A) violation had occurred because Ford had agreed on July 31, 1972, to a trial continuance until September 5, 1972. Thus, under CR. 4(A), prior to the 1973 amendment, for speedy trial purposes, the six month period began to run anew on September 5, 1972, after the last delay chargeable to Ford.
Ford petitioned the trial court for post-conviction relief, 1 which was denied. On appeal from that denial Ford presents this issue for our review:
Did the court err during the post-conviction relief hearing when it denied Ford's motion for a Nunc pro tunc order to change an entry in the court's order book?
We affirm.
The petitioner in a post-conviction relief proceeding has the burden of establishing his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind.Rules of Procedure, Post-Conviction Rule 1 § 5. Holsclaw v. State (1979), Ind., 384 N.E.2d 1026. The trial court hearing the petition is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. Carroll v. State (1976), 265 Ind. 423, 355 N.E.2d 408; Davis v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 327, 330 N.E.2d 738. Its determination will be reversed only where the evidence is without conflict and leads unerringly to a result not reached by the trial court. Cottingham v. State (1978), Ind., 379 N.E.2d 984; Carroll, supra ; Roberts v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 53, 324 N.E.2d 265.
In Ford, the following sequence of events from the trial court's record was set out:
"February 3, 1972 Affidavit for robbery filed
against Ford and co-defendant
Thomas; Ford arrested
February 10, 1972 Trial set for February 28, 1972
February 25, 1972 Trial continued at defendant's
request
March 22, 1972 Trial set for April 3, 1972
April 3, 1972 Ford moves for separate trial;
motion overruled; trial set for
April 25, 1972.
April 25, 1972 Court orders separate trials for
Thomas and Ford.
May 12, 1972 Trial set for May 30, 1972.
May 30, 1972 Trial continued on court's own
motion.
July 19, 1972 Trial set for July 31, 1972.
July 31, 1972 Trial continued until September
5, 1972 by agreement of the
parties.
September 5, 1972 Trial continued 'at the request of
the defendant by counsel.'
October 23, 1972 Trial set for November 13, 1972.
November 13, 1972 Court appoints new pauper
attorney to represent Ford.
November 28, 1972 Trial set for December 29, 1972.
December 26, 1972 Ford's second pauper attorney
granted leave to withdraw.
December 27, 1972 Court reappoints first pauper
attorney to represent Ford; cause
set for trial on January 12, 1973.
January 12, 1973 Cause set for hearing on State's
motion to expunge the April 25,
1972 entry granting Thomas and
Ford separate trials.
January 25, 1973 Court grants motion to expunge;
trial set for February 28, 1973.
February 28, 1973 Ford files petition for discharge;
petition denied; jury trial
commences." (Footnotes omitted).
At the hearing Ford moved to change the July 31, 1972 entry to refer specifically to his co-defendant Thomas instead of the general entry of "parties". Separate trials had been granted to Ford and Thomas on April 25, 1972. Ford argues that his court-appointed appellate counsel, who was not his trial attorney, mistakenly believed that the July 31st entry was attributable to Ford.
A Nunc pro tunc entry is "an entry made now of something which was previously done, to have effect as of the former date." Stowers v. State (1977), Ind., 363 N.E.2d 978; Perkins v. Hayward (1892), 132 Ind. 95, 31 N.E. 670. The entry may serve to change or to supplement an entry already existing in the court's order book. Stowers, supra.
The Stowers court enumerated the requirements for making a Nunc pro tunc entry: "Such entries must be based upon written memoranda, notes, or other memorials which (1) must be found in the records of the case; (2) must be required by law to be kept; (3) must show action taken or orders or rulings made by the court; and (4) must exist in the records of the court contemporaneous with or preceding the date of the action described." 2
Ford's hearing commenced on June 3, 1977. The record reveals the following testimony in support of Ford's petition:
Trial counsel for co-defendant Thomas did not remember the case and had been unable to locate his case file.
The pauper attorney who represented Ford during the summer of 1972 (and who ultimately tried the case after a leave of absence) had no case records. He had no personal recollection of requesting a continuance on Ford's behalf. Counsel stated that he had not prepared for trial on July 31, 1972, and could only presume that he had not prepared for trial because he knew that it was to be continued. Additionally, no formal objection to that continuance was filed.
Ford had difficulty recalling the events surrounding his court experiences, and was uncertain as to the specific crime of which he had been convicted. He did recall that he had not requested a continuance.
The court commissioner who prepared the July 31st entry had no recollection of the event.
Nunc pro tunc entries may not be entered without some intrinsic basis; some written memorial or trial court entry must exist and form the basis for establishing the error or omission sought to be corrected. Blum's Lumber & Crating, Inc. v. James (1972), 259 Ind. 220, 285 N.E.2d 822. Statements of the parties or of their counsel, whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Domain Industries, Inc. v. Universal Pool Supply, Inc.
...showing the submission of the certificate. Blum's Lumber & Crating, Inc. v. James, (1972) 259 Ind. 220, 285 N.E.2d 822; Ford v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 390 N.E.2d 676; Palmer v. State, (1977) Ind.App., 363 N.E.2d 1245, 1247; McWhirt v. Fearnow, (1973) 158 Ind.App. 68, 301 N.E.2d ...
-
Rich v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division
...record as does a court. A court's correction of an error nunc pro tunc relates back to the time of the original entry. Ford v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 390 N.E.2d 676." Id. at 771. For this and other reasons, we reversed the award and remanded the cause for a new Rich has shown that the Dire......
- Monte Carlo, Inc. v. Wilcox
-
Bogdon v. Ramada Inn, Inc.
...record as does a court. A court's correction of an error nunc pro tunc relates back to the time of the original entry. Ford v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 390 N.E.2d 676. For the reasons stated above, this cause is reversed and the Board is ordered to grant a new hearing of the entire proceedin......