Moore v. State, 4-182A4
| Decision Date | 25 October 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-182A4,4-182A4 |
| Parties | Jerry W. MOORE, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Douglas R. Denmure, Aurora, for appellant-defendant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Palmer K. Ward, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee-plaintiff.
Appellant-defendant Jerry W. Moore (Moore) pled guilty to driving an over-weight truck in Dearborn County Court, traffic division. He was fined $6,942 and costs and the truck was impounded. He appeals that judgment.
Appeal dismissed.
We dismiss this appeal because Moore's brief fails to state the issues upon which he relies.
Moore was charged with operating an over-weight truck weighing 88,100 pounds when the maximum weight permitted by statute was 73,280 pounds. He appeared in the Dearborn County Court, traffic division and entered a plea of guilty after the court explained to Moore his constitutional rights, the nature of the charge, the maximum penalties involved and the consequences of a guilty plea. After the plea was entered, the court fined the owner of the truck $6,942 plus costs and the truck was impounded.
Moore filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Later, the court amended its judgment and entered the fine and costs against Moore. Andy-K Trucking Company, Moore's employer, then filed its motion to intervene. Thereafter, the trial court overruled Moore's motion to correct errors and made the trucking company jointly liable with Moore for the fine and costs assessed.
Moore's motion to correct errors contains thirteen separate specifications of error. His brief states in the section designated Statement of Issues Presented for Review the following:
The issues presented for review are those raised in appellant's (defendant's) motion to correct errors and the ultimate issue presented for review is whether the county court erred in overruling the motion to correct errors.
The State's brief attempted to clarify the issues by stating them as follows:
Was Appellant's guilty plea knowingly and intelligently made?
Moore, however, disagreed with the State's attempt to define the issues on appeal for him. His reply brief opens with the following assertion:
Appellant is in disagreement with Appellee's version concerning the Statement of the Issues in this case. Contrary to Appellee's assertion, the issue as to whether Appellant's guilty plea was knowingly and intelligently made, is not the sole issue in this case but one of several issues included under Appellant's motion to correct errors. The real issue is whether the Court erred in overruling Appellant's motion to correct errors.
Upon this state of briefing, we do not know what issues Moore attempts to assert in this appeal. Even the argument portions of his briefs contain no subdivisions to give us any clue as to which issues in the motion to correct errors he relies upon and those which he waives. We will not sort out those issues for him.
Ind.Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(3) requires a statement of the issues presented for review in an appellant's brief.
Indiana Law Encyclopedia presents this subject matter cogently, saying in its black letter paragraphs
It is the duty of attorneys to prepare their briefs in accordance with the court rules. The strictness of requirements as to the preparation of briefs has been somewhat relaxed, but this is only in cases where the court can clearly understand from the briefs the questions sought to be presented.
The court rule relating to matters to be contained in the appellant's brief must be substantially...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Terpstra v. Farmers and Merchants Bank
...Blunck (1983), Ind.App., 453 N.E.2d 324, 325; Vicarro v. City of Fort Wayne (1983), Ind.App., 449 N.E.2d 1161, 1162; Moore v. State (1982), Ind.App., 441 N.E.2d 220, 221, reh. den. Terpstra's failure to include a verbatim statement of the trial court's judgment in his appellate brief is a t......
-
Santini v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
...84; Sartain v. Blunck (1983), Ind.App., 453 N.E.2d 324; Vicarro v. City of Fort Wayne (1983), Ind.App., 449 N.E.2d 1161; Moore v. State (1982), Ind.App., 441 N.E.2d 220.9 We note the standard of review for refusal to give tendered instructions was recently summarized by Judge Young in City ......
-
Swammi, Inc. v. Shambaugh, Kast, Beck, Williams, LLP
...a Div. of Jack Gray Transport, Inc. v. Rudolph Robinson Steel Co., 691 N.E.2d 1294, 1294 n. 1 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). In Moore v. State, 441 N.E.2d 220, 22122 (Ind.Ct.App.1982), we dismissed the appeal when the statement of the issues merely referred us to the issues that had been raised in the ......
-
McFadin v. State, 82A04-8601-CR33
...of error in the argument section of his brief we can determine the extent to which he asserts error. But see, Moore v. State (1982), Ind.App., 441 N.E.2d 220, reh. denied. There an Appellant used his motion to correct errors instead of a concise statement of each issue presented for review.......