Green v. State
Decision Date | 15 June 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 1179S314,1179S314 |
Citation | 421 N.E.2d 635 |
Parties | Thomas Abraham GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
C. Thomas Cone, Greenfield, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Gordon R. Medlicott, Deputy Atty. Gen. Indianapolis, for appellee.
This is a direct appeal from convictions for rape, class B felony; child molesting, class C felony; and confinement, class B felony. Appellant Green was sentenced to consecutive terms of twenty years each on the B felonies and a term of five years on the C felony which is concurrent with the other terms.
On appeal Green raises the following issues: whether the trial court failed to follow prescribed statutory procedure when Green entered a special plea of insanity; whether the trial court failed to follow statutorily prescribed procedure when he entered a suggestion of incompetency; and whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences.
Green claims that the trial court committed reversible error when it refused to order a psychiatric examination as required by Ind. Code § 35-5-2-2, after permitting him to file out of time a notice of an insanity defense pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-5-2-1. The statutes read as follows:
Nothing in the record supports Green's claim that the trial court had indeed exercised its discretion under § 35-5-2-1, and permitted him to file out of time. We find only a copy of the special plea (which incidentally does not meet the requirement of showing good cause for being filed more than thirty days after entry of the plea) stamped by the clerk's office with the date of the first day of the trial. The record does not show that the trial court made any determination on the insanity defense, raising the inference that it refused to exercise its discretion and permit filing out of time. Since the notice was not permitted to be filed, the mandatory provisions of § 35-5-2-2 did not come into play. There was no error here.
The next claim is that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to follow the requirements of Ind. Code § 35-5-3.1-1 which provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dudley v. State
...then no appointment of psychiatrists is required and the court's decision is reviewable only for abuse of discretion. Green v. State, (1981) Ind., 421 N.E.2d 635, (remanded on other grounds); Dragon v. State, (1979) 270 Ind. 223, 383 N.E.2d 1046, cert. denied, (1979) 442 U.S. 912, 99 S.Ct. ......
-
Perry v. State
...was in the best position to interpret Defendant's behavior, and we find no abuse of discretion in his decision. See Green v. State, (1981) Ind., 421 N.E.2d 635, 637. ISSUE Defendant argues that he did not waive his Sixth Amendment right to be present during his trial but, rather, that he wa......
-
Hurley v. State
...to question a defendant's competency but that the accused has the burden of establishing that reasonable grounds exist. Green v. State, (1981) Ind., 421 N.E.2d 635. We agree. The trial court has discretion to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is inco......
-
Myers v. State
...Myers's motion for a new trial merely because of his perceived diminished ability to participate in his own defense. See Green v. State (Ind.1981) 421 N.E.2d 635. Judgment NEAL, P. J., and ROBERTSON, J., concur. 1 West's AIC 35-43-1-2 Mischief:"A person who:(1) recklessly, knowingly, or int......