Franks v. State

Decision Date02 November 1973
Docket NumberNo. 373S33,373S33
Citation302 N.E.2d 767,261 Ind. 315
PartiesPaul Eugene FRANKS, Jr., Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Barrie C. Tremper, Public Defender, Fort Wayne, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., A. Frank Gleaves, III, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

HUNTER, Justice.

This is an appeal from a first degree murder conviction in which appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Indiana State Prison. Appellant raises one issue for our determination: Whether it is reversible error for a trial court to summarily deny an unverified application for change of venue from the county. We hold that it is not.

Criminal Rule 12, Rules of Criminal Procedure, reads in pertinent part as follows:

'. . . Upon the filing of a properly verified application, a change of venue from the county shall be granted in all cases punishable by death and may be granted in all other cases when in the court's discretion cause for such change is shown to exist after such hearing or upon such other proof as the court may require. Provided, however, that the state of Indiana or the defendant shall be entitled to only one (1) change from the judge and the defendant shall be entitled to only one (1) change from the county.

'Provided, however, that if the applicant first obtains knowledge of the cause for change of venue from the judge or from the county after the time above limited, he may file the application, which shall be verified by the party himself specifically alleging when the cause was first discovered, how it was discovered, the facts showing the cause for a change, and why such cause could not have been discovered before by the exercise of due diligence. Any opposing party shall have the right to file counter-affidavits on such issue within ten (10) days, and the ruling of the court may be reviewed only for abuse of discretion. All pleadings, papers and affidavits filed at any hearing held pursuant to this rule shall become a part of the record without further action upon the part of either party. . . .' (Emphasis added.)

Prior to trial, on July 19, 1972, the appellant filed an unverified application for change of venue from the county in which he alleged that a confidential psychiatric report concerning the appellant had been published in a local newspaper. Appellant further alleged that the publication of said report would inevitably prejudice potential...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Darnell v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • May 25, 1982
    ...no direct evidence of prejudicial pretrial publicity was ever offered. Barber v. State, (1979) Ind., 388 N.E.2d 511; Franks v. State, (1973) 261 Ind. 315, 302 N.E.2d 767. V. Defendant further argues that he was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. He made a pr......
  • Wilson v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • December 26, 1984
    ...Id. We thus conclude these motions were not denied without a hearing because of facial irregularities. See, e.g., Franks v. State (1973), 261 Ind. 315, 302 N.E.2d 767. Having otherwise determined that Wilson's motions were properly made, we turn now to the judge's responsibilities thereto. ......
  • Carter v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • August 1, 1983
    ...Court. That alleged issue is waived. Underhill v. State, supra; Barber v. State, (1979) 270 Ind. 624, 388 N.E.2d 511; Franks v. State, (1973) 261 Ind. 315, 302 N.E.2d 767. The basis for Appellant's motion for change of venue from the judge was the fact that the same trial judge trying Appel......
  • French v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • July 31, 2001
    ...have been voiced immediately by a motion to quash or it would be deemed to have been waived." Id. at 369. See also Franks v. State, 261 Ind. 315, 302 N.E.2d 767 (1973) (discussing the holding in Pierce v. State, 253 Ind. 650, 256 N.E.2d 557 It has also been held that a prosecutor's failure ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT