Kindred v. State, No. 4-1185
| Docket Nº | No. 4-1185 |
| Citation | 493 N.E.2d 467 |
| Case Date | May 28, 1986 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Page 467
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
Fourth District.
Page 468
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Jody Cusson-Cobb, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
CONOVER, Judge.
Appellant James H. Kindred (Kindred) appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.
We reverse.
This appeal presents the following issues:
1. Whether the trial court erred by denying Kindred's motion for default judgment?
2. Whether original trial proceedings were void because juvenile jurisdiction was not properly waived?
3. Whether the trial court properly advised Kindred of his appellate rights in the original proceeding?
4. Whether the post-conviction court improperly denied Kindred his right to counsel because proper waiver thereof did not appear in the record?
5. Whether the post-conviction court erred by ruling Kindred had a duty to further recreate the silent record?
6. Whether the post-conviction court erred in denying Kindred post-conviction relief due to laches?
In 1965 Kindred, then age 17, was charged in the Morgan Circuit Court with theft, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor, and having no operator's license. On motion of the prosecutor the Circuit Court waived jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Kindred entered a plea of not guilty on all counts. Following trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on one count, theft. The trial court sentenced Kindred to 180 days on the Indiana State Farm.
In June of 1984, 19 years later, Kindred filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging
1. the trial court lacked jurisdiction because juvenile jurisdiction had not been properly waived;
2. the trial court failed to order a presentence investigation; and
3. the trial court failed to advise Kindred of his right to appeal.
After pleading entanglements were unraveled, the trial court held a hearing on Kindred's petition for post-conviction relief. Kindred acted pro se.
The State presented testimony from the former prosecutor. He testified he had no file, several witnesses were still living, but one material witness was dead and several witnesses were living either out of the county or out of the state. Further, the stolen Chevrolet automobile, a material piece of evidence, could not be found. Finally, although a file had been reconstructed from the court's file there was no juvenile record, no police file, and the memories of the witnesses were hazy.
Other facts necessary to a resolution of the issues presented are stated infra.
The petitioner in a post-conviction relief proceeding has the burden of proving his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. The court hearing the petition is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence. We will reverse the trial court only where the evidence is without conflict and leads unerringly to a result other than the one reached by the trial court. See, e.g., McHugh v. State (1984), Ind., 471 N.E.2d 293, 294; Martin v. State (1984), Ind.App., 471 N.E.2d 1190, 1191; Roberts v. State (1981), Ind.App., 419 N.E.2d 803, 807; Ind. Rules of Procedure, Post-Conviction Rule 1, Sec. 5.
Because we reverse, we need discuss only issue 2.
Waiver of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction 1
Kindred contends the Morgan Circuit Court never acquired juvenile jurisdiction.
Page 469
In the alternative, he argues if juvenile jurisdiction was acquired it was not properly waived, thus he could not be tried in the circuit court.In support of these contentions at the post-conviction hearing Kindred introduced a copy of the Morgan Circuit Court criminal docket sheet. 2 The docket sheet was offered and admitted into evidence without objection as petitioner's exhibit 1. (R. 156).
Kindred asked the post-conviction court to take notice of the contents of the docket sheet. He argued it proved the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the charges filed against him. The State presented no evidence on this issue. However, the State's evidence on the issue of laches indicated no juvenile record was in existence.
The docket entry of June 28, 1965, stated:
State of Indiana appears by Richard D. Bray, Pros. Atty.
By the Court: How old are you? A. 17. Deft. appears in court in person and with counsel. Pros. Atty. moves that Juvenile jurisdiction be waived. The Court being duly advised now waives juvenile jurisdiction. Affidavit is read to the deft. And now the deft. is arraigned and enters a plea of not guilty.
Bond fixed in the sum of $1000.00. Deft. remanded to the custody of the sheriff until bond is obtained and approved.
When the 17-year-old Kindred was charged in Morgan Circuit Court the court had juvenile jurisdiction under Acts 1945, Chapter 347, Sec. 2 as amended by Acts 1949, Chapter 20, Sec. 1 codified at Burns Sec. 9-3102 (1956 replacement). 3 Such jurisdiction was original and exclusive. 4 That is, the Morgan Circuit Court had both criminal (adult) jurisdiction and juvenile jurisdiction; it had the authority to hear such cases.
To exercise its juvenile jurisdiction over a delinquent child, 5 however, the Morgan Circuit
Page 470
Court was required to follow specific statutory procedures. A person subject to the jurisdiction of a juvenile...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kindred v. State, No. 685S224
...279; Kindred v. State (1988), Ind., 521 N.E.2d 320; Kindred v. State (1987), Ind.App., 514 N.E.2d 314; Kindred v. State (1986), Ind.App., 493 N.E.2d 467; State ex rel. Kindred v. Morgan Circuit Court (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 328; Kindred v. State (1977), 173 Ind.App. 624, 365 N.E.2d 776; Ki......
-
Kindred v. State, No. 67A01-9607-PC-217
...N.E.2d 279 (Ind.1988); Kindred v. State, 521 N.E.2d 320 (Ind.1988); Kindred v. State, 514 N.E.2d 314 (Ind.Ct.App.1987); Kindred v. State, 493 N.E.2d 467 (Ind.Ct.App.1986); State ex rel. Kindred v. Morgan Circuit Court, 455 N.E.2d 328 (Ind.1983); Kindred v. State, 173 Ind.App. 624, 365 N.E.2......
-
BR v. State, No. 49A02-0404-JV-322.
...juvenile jurisdiction and that we would sua sponte address jurisdictional issues, even if not raised by the appellant); Kindred v. State, 493 N.E.2d 467, 470-71 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (holding that failure of record to disclose necessary prerequisites for initiating juvenile delinquency proceedi......
-
KS v. State, No. 49A04-0308-JV-383.
...demonstrating the non-waivability of a juvenile court's errors regarding the statutory prerequisites to jurisdiction is Kindred v. State, 493 N.E.2d 467 (Ind.Ct.App.1986). In that case, a seventeen-year-old was accused of committing theft in 1965. He was waived into adult court and found gu......
-
Kindred v. State, No. 685S224
...279; Kindred v. State (1988), Ind., 521 N.E.2d 320; Kindred v. State (1987), Ind.App., 514 N.E.2d 314; Kindred v. State (1986), Ind.App., 493 N.E.2d 467; State ex rel. Kindred v. Morgan Circuit Court (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 328; Kindred v. State (1977), 173 Ind.App. 624, 365 N.E.2d 776; Ki......
-
Kindred v. State, No. 67A01-9607-PC-217
...N.E.2d 279 (Ind.1988); Kindred v. State, 521 N.E.2d 320 (Ind.1988); Kindred v. State, 514 N.E.2d 314 (Ind.Ct.App.1987); Kindred v. State, 493 N.E.2d 467 (Ind.Ct.App.1986); State ex rel. Kindred v. Morgan Circuit Court, 455 N.E.2d 328 (Ind.1983); Kindred v. State, 173 Ind.App. 624, 365 N.E.2......
-
BR v. State, No. 49A02-0404-JV-322.
...juvenile jurisdiction and that we would sua sponte address jurisdictional issues, even if not raised by the appellant); Kindred v. State, 493 N.E.2d 467, 470-71 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (holding that failure of record to disclose necessary prerequisites for initiating juvenile delinquency proceedi......
-
KS v. State, No. 49A04-0308-JV-383.
...demonstrating the non-waivability of a juvenile court's errors regarding the statutory prerequisites to jurisdiction is Kindred v. State, 493 N.E.2d 467 (Ind.Ct.App.1986). In that case, a seventeen-year-old was accused of committing theft in 1965. He was waived into adult court and found gu......