In re Kretchmer
| Decision Date | 22 November 1945 |
| Docket Number | 28267. |
| Citation | 69 N.E.2d 598,224 Ind. 559 |
| Parties | In re KRETCHMER. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Joseph Circuit Court; Dan Pyle, Judge.
Richard C. Kretchmer pro se.
Frank L. Greenwald, of Gary, for appellee.
The petitioner herein, Richard C. Kretchmer, is asking this court for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, an appeal from an adverse judgment rendered in the St. Joseph Circuit Court in proceedings wherein the petitioner was seeking a writ of error coram nobis; petitioner is also requesting that this court rule the public defender to procure, at the expense of the State of Indiana, a transcript of the proceedings in said coram nobis action, and that we order said public defender to represent this petition in the prosecution of said appeal.
This court has no jurisdiction to grant petitioner the right to appeal from the trial court as a poor person. If petitioner is entitled to so appeal, the same must be granted by the trial court on a proper showing. State ex rel. Jones v. Smith (State ex rel. Jones v. Hornaday), 1942, 220 Ind. 645, 45 N.E.2d 203, 46 N.E.2d 199.
Since this court has received this petition, the public defender, at the request of this court, has examined the record in said coram nobis proceedings to determine whether or not, in his opinion, any substantial error was committed in said proceedings upon which to base an appeal. After making such investigation said public defender has advised this court that in his opinion no error exists. Under these circumstances the court would not be justified or warranted in ordering an appeal in this case at public expense.
Petition denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCrary v. State
...assertion that he is unlawfully imprisoned, after due investigation, appears in his sound judgment to have no merit. In re Kretchmer, 1946, 224 Ind. 559, 69 N.E.2d 598; State ex rel. Fulton v. Schannen, 1946, 224 Ind. 55, 58, 64 N.E.2d 798; Sweet v. State, 1948, 226 Ind. 566, 81 N.E.2d 679.......
-
In re Estate of Woollen, 27A02-0112-CV-849.
...2. After reviewing the Indiana Rehearing and Transfer Table, we note that there are two (2) documents that are found with the citation 69 N.E.2d 598: the case we cite to, Hinkle v. Woolpert, 117 Ind.App. 431, 69 N.E.2d 598 (1946), and Kretchmer v. State of Indiana, 329 U.S. 797, 67 S.Ct. 48......
-
O'Pry v. Bahr
... ... 173, 107 S.W.2d 374; Miller v. Metcalf, 77 Conn. 176, 58 A. 743; Peet v. Commerce Railway Co., 70 Tex. 522, 8 S.W. 203; In Re Anderson's Estate, 148 Minn. 44, 180 N.W. 1019; In Re Barnard's Estate, 351 Pa. 313, 41 A. 2d 578; In Re Fahnestock, 384 Ill. 26, 50 N.E.2d 733; In Re Kretchmer, Ind.Sup., 69 N.E.2d 598; Simmons v. O'Connor, Tex.Civ.App., 149 S.W.2d 1107; 44 Tex. Jur., 796, Para. 227 ... Indeed, no doubt is left in the mind of this Court as to the correctness of such construction of this will, when the principles determined by the Texas Supreme Court in ... ...
-
Brown v. State, 0-604
...assertion that he is unlawfully imprisoned, after due investigation, appears in his sound judgment to have no merit. In re Kretchmer 1946, 224 Ind. 559, 69 N.E.2d 598; State ex rel. Fulton v. Schannen, 1946, 224 Ind. 55, 58, 64 N.E.2d 798; Sweet v. State, 1948, 226 Ind. 566, 81 N.E.2d 679.'......