Mellot v. State, 27656.
| Citation | 219 Ind. 646,40 N.E.2d 655 |
| Decision Date | 30 March 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 27656.,27656. |
| Parties | MELLOT v. STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
MELLOT
v.
STATE.
No. 27656.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
March 30, 1942.
Russell Mellot was convicted for the crime of unlawfully escaping from the Indiana State Farm, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Putnam Circuit Court; Marshall D. Abrams, Judge.
James & Allee, of Greencastle, for appellant.
George N. Beamer, Atty. Gen., Rexell A. Boyd, Pros. Atty., of Greencastle, and Norman E. Duke, Dep. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
ROLL, Judge.
Appellant was prosecuted by affidavit charging that he unlawfully escaped from the Indiana State Farm. The prosecution was under § 10-1808, Burns' St.1933, Sec. 2651-1, Baldwin's Ind. Statute 1934.
The record shows that on the 11th day of September 1940, in the Circuit Court of Elkhart County, appellant was convicted of the crime of issuing fraudulent checks. The judgment of the court was that he be imprisoned in the Indiana State Prison for a period of not less than one year nor more than five years and fined in the sum of $100. Under the above judgment, appellant was committed to and confined in the Indiana State Prison.
Afterwards, on November 13, 1940, appellant was transferred from the Indiana State Prison to the Indiana State Farm. This transfer was made pursuant to an order of the Department of Public Welfare as provided by § 52-1104, Sec. 14078-5, Baldwin's Ind. Statute Supp.1937, Acts 1936, Spec.Sess., Ch. 3, § 5, Subdiv. (o); that appellant was held in said Indiana State Farm by virtue of said transfer and by no other authority.
About sixteen days after appellant was transferred to the Indiana State Farm, he went to the office and demanded that he be transferred back to the State Prison at Michigan City, because he was not satisfied with the work assigned to him and that he didn't like the place. He was informed that he could not be transferred back to the State Prison. A short time thereafter, appellant left the State Farm without leave. After his absence was discovered, a search was made but he was not found, and the present affidavit was filed in the Putnam Circuit Court, charging appellant with unlawfully escaping from the State Farm.
The record further shows that after appellant left the State Farm, he ‘hitchhicked’ back to Michigan City, and reported to the Warden of the Indiana State Prison and told him that he had requested to be re-transferred and was told that they had no authority to transfer him back to the State Prison, and for that reason he came back himself. He was returned to the Indiana State Farm at his own...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...... Blue v. State (1946), 224 Ind. 394, 67 N.E.2d 377; Mellot v. State (1942), 219 Ind. 646, 40 N.E.2d 655. 'It is only when a criminal penalty is not graduated and proportioned to the nature of an offense, or ......
-
Rogers v. State
...... Blue v. State (1946), 224 Ind. 394, 67 N.E.2d 377; Mellot v. State (1942), 219 Ind. 646, 40 N.E.2d 655. It is only when a criminal penalty is not graduated and proportioned to the nature of an offense, or ......
-
Kennedy v. State
...... Blue v. State, (1946) 224 Ind. 394, 67 N.E.2d 377; Mellot v. State, (1942) 219 Ind. 646, 40 N.E.2d 655. It is only when the sentence is grossly disproportionate or unquestionably excessive that the ......
-
Rowe v. State
...... Blue v. State (1946), 224 Ind. 394, 67 N.E.2d 377; Mellot v. State (1942), 219 Ind. 646, 40 N.E.2d 655. It is only when a criminal penalty is not graduated and proportioned to the nature of the offense, or ......