Griffith v. State, 0-701
| Decision Date | 18 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 0-701,0-701 |
| Citation | 214 N.E.2d 795,247 Ind. 257 |
| Parties | Claude GRIFFITH, Petitioner, v. STATE of Indiana, Respondent. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Claude Griffith, pro se.
John Dillon, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Petitioner has filed a petition for rehearing from an order filed on November 2, 1965, dismissing his petition for a writ of certiorari. Petitioner by his petition for a writ of certiorari sought to obtain review of the trial court's denial of his 'Verified Petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis.' The trial court treated the 'Verified Petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis' as a belated motion for new trial under Rule 2-40, Rules of the Supreme Court of Indiana. The basis of petitioner's 'Vertified Petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis' and Petition for Writ of Certiorari is that his counsel committed 'gross neglect' in failing to include certain points in the motion for new trial and in failing to make proper objections to certain matters during the trial.
The folllowing facts show that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari has no merit.
Petitioner was indicted and tried by jury on five counts, including burglary and armed robbery. On April 1, 1958, petitioner was convicted of only the lesser included offense of grand larceny and was sentenced from one to ten years in the Indiana State Prison.
Petitioner retained his own counsel who represented petitioner at the trial. The counsel retained by petitioner also prepared and filed a timely motion for new trial in the cause and prosecuted an appeal to this court, all by petitioner's own choice. On appeal, this court affirmed the conviction of grand larceny in an opinion filed March 30, 1959. See Griffith v. State (1959), 239 Ind. 321, 157 N.E.2d 191.
Petitioner made no complaint or objection to his counsel's conduct of the proceedings until after his conviction was affirmed by this court. It is well established that after the proceedings have terminated, a defendant in a criminal case cannot for the first time object to his self-chosen counsel's management of the case. United States v. Hack (7th Cir.1953), 205 F.2d 723, 726, 727, cert. denied 1953, 346 U.S. 875, 74 S.Ct. 127, 98 L.Ed. 383. The Seventh Circuit in United States v. Hack, supra, at pp. 726, 727, 205 F.2d, quoted the following from Burton v. United States (1945), 80 U.S.App.D.C. 208, 151 F.2d 17, 18:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Phend, 17574.
...they refuse to consider direct or collateral attacks on self-retained counsel. Griffith v. State, 247 Ind. 257, 202 N.E.2d 273, 214 N.E.2d 795 (1966) (per curiam); Gibson v. State, 15 Ind.Dec. 479, 240 N.E.2d 812, 814 (1968). The petition was dismissed below without requiring rsepondent to ......
-
Rice v. State, 30933
...counsel, when we consider that his trial counsel was a lawyer of his own selection, he cannot be heard to complain now. Griffith v. State (1966) Ind., 214 N.E.2d 795. If the alleged witness, Charles Ernie, does exist, which may be doubted because Appellant is the only one who mentioned his ......
-
Gibson v. State, 867S75
...the defendant in a criminal action cannot for the first time object to his self-chosen counsel's management of the case. Griffith v. State (1966), Ind., 214 N.E.2d 795; Rice v. State (1967), Ind., 223 N.E.2d We find no reversible error in the record and that the judgment was supported by su......