Garr v. State, No. 1173S219

Docket NºNo. 1173S219
Citation262 Ind. 134, 312 N.E.2d 70
Case DateJune 18, 1974
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 70

312 N.E.2d 70
262 Ind. 134
John S. GARR, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
No. 1173S219.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
June 18, 1974.

[262 Ind. 135] Hilbert L. Bradley, Gary, for appellant.

Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., David A. Miller, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

GIVAN, Justice.

This is an appeal from the overruling of a motion to correct errors under Rule 1, Indiana Rules of Procedure for Post-Conviction Remedies § 1(a).

Appellant was originally convicted in January, 1966, of the statutory rape of a two-year old child. He was represented by privately employed counsel at that trial. The same counsel was appointed by the court to perfect an appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court. A decision was rendered on that appeal June [262 Ind. 136] 19, 1967, affirming the

Page 71

conviction of the appellant. See Garr v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 295, 227 N.E.2d 171, 10 Ind.Dec. 608.

In his petition for post-conviction remedy the appellant set out many of the same questions which were raised in his original appeal.

Section 1(b) of the post-conviction remedies' rule specifically states that this remedy is not a substitute for a direct appeal.

The matters which were considered and adjudicated in the original appeal will not be reconsidered by this Court on an appeal from a denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The only reason for considering such matters is to determine whether or not appellant's allegation that his original trial counsel who defended him in the court below and perfected his appeal from his conviction was so incompetent as to cause the appellant to be denied due process of law at the time of his conviction. Although it is not clear from the matters here presented, it would appear appellant is attacking trial counsel for not questioning the fact that he was arrested without a warrant. The record is this case shows that the father of the molested child heard the child screaming, entered a bedroom, saw the appellant attempting to pull the child's pants up, took the child from the appellant and discovered that she had semen on her vulva and legs, and that there was semen on the bed sheet. After an altercation with the appellant, police were summoned, and the appellant was pursued and arrested immediately by the police. There is no question but what a police officer may arrest a suspect without a warrant when he has probable cause to believe that a felony has...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Rowan v. State, No. 380S76
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 5, 1982
    ...of the slightest degree of penetration is sufficient. Allbritten v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 452, 317 N.E.2d 854; Garr v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 134, 312 N.E.2d 70; Mooney v. State, (1965) 246 Ind. 570, 207 N.E.2d 623. The fact-finder may infer penetration from circumstantial evidence such as......
  • Porter v. State, No. 177S14
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • July 3, 1979
    ...such is not necessary. The matter of the order of proof is within the sound discretion of the trial court." Garr v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 134, 137, 312 N.E.2d 70, 71-72. The testimony of Mrs. Keeling and Richard Quick established sufficient evidence for the purposes [271 Ind. 189] of this ......
  • Sizemore v. State, No. 1079S295
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 25, 1979
    ...and tried to get it in as far as he could. Proof of the slightest penetration is sufficient to constitute rape. Garr v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 134, 312 N.E.2d It is unnecessary to set out all the additional descriptions of these acts. K. C., testified and was questioned for over 220 pages o......
  • Sizemore v. State, No. 1-1277A287
    • United States
    • January 29, 1979
    ...the order of proof is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Lee v. State (1976), Ind.App., 349 N.E.2d 214; Garr v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 134, 312 N.E.2d 70. Moreover, the crux of this contention is based on the failure to establish venue prior to the introduction of the statement......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Rowan v. State, No. 380S76
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 5, 1982
    ...of the slightest degree of penetration is sufficient. Allbritten v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 452, 317 N.E.2d 854; Garr v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 134, 312 N.E.2d 70; Mooney v. State, (1965) 246 Ind. 570, 207 N.E.2d 623. The fact-finder may infer penetration from circumstantial evidence such as......
  • Porter v. State, No. 177S14
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • July 3, 1979
    ...such is not necessary. The matter of the order of proof is within the sound discretion of the trial court." Garr v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 134, 137, 312 N.E.2d 70, 71-72. The testimony of Mrs. Keeling and Richard Quick established sufficient evidence for the purposes [271 Ind. 189] of this ......
  • Sizemore v. State, No. 1079S295
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 25, 1979
    ...and tried to get it in as far as he could. Proof of the slightest penetration is sufficient to constitute rape. Garr v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 134, 312 N.E.2d It is unnecessary to set out all the additional descriptions of these acts. K. C., testified and was questioned for over 220 pages o......
  • Sizemore v. State, No. 1-1277A287
    • United States
    • January 29, 1979
    ...the order of proof is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Lee v. State (1976), Ind.App., 349 N.E.2d 214; Garr v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 134, 312 N.E.2d 70. Moreover, the crux of this contention is based on the failure to establish venue prior to the introduction of the statement......
  • 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