Phillips v. Grim
| Decision Date | 27 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 30031,30031 |
| Citation | 183 N.E.2d 597,243 Ind. 161 |
| Parties | Steve E. PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. Sheriff Gresham GRIM, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Carrol F. Dillon, Robert D. Schuttler, Evansville, for appellant.
Robert J. Hayes, Evansville, Judson H. West, Hugh E. Reynolds, Jr., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Vanderburgh Superior Court denying appellant's petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
So far as we are able to ascertain from the record before us, appellant was arrested and placed in the custody of appellee on August 11, 1960, by virtue of a commitment reading as follows:
'You are hereby commanded to receive the custody of Pvt Stephen E. Phillips a member of Company C 1st BG 152d Infantry, of the Indiana National Guard, who has on, 10 August 1960, been tried by Summary Court-martial as provided by the Statutes of the State of Indiana, (1933 Burns 45-509, until 1 Jan. 54), and hold said prisoner in your custody for Fifteen (15) days in satisfaction of the sentence of this court. Dated at 1045 hours, this 10th day of August, 1960.
'/s/ William S. Mitchell
1st Lt Co. C 1st BG 152d Inf. Ind ARNG
M Age 19 Color W
8-11-60 Time 10 00 A.M.
State IND Jailer BB'
On the same day, August 11, 1960, appellant filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging therein that he was being unlawfully restrained of his liberty by appellee. Thereupon the Judge Pro Tempore of said court ordered appellee to produce the person and the body of appellant before said court at 3:30 p. m. on said day and to answer as to said restraint. At the hearing thereon the court ordered appellant released on $150 bond and granted appellee until August 17, 1960, to file a response to appellant's petition. Hearing was resumed on August 17, 1960, and appellee filed his return to the writ, on the same day, alleging inter alia, that he was holding appellant upon order of the Indiana National Guard pursuant to the commitment above set out, and denying that appellant was being unlawfully restrained.
The appellant requested the Court for a continuance to study appellee's return and answer. It then being 12:30 p. m., the court granted such continuance until 2:30 p. m. on the same date, appellant objecting thereto on the ground that such continuance was insufficient time within which to prepare pleadings in answer or denial of appellee's return and answer. The hearing was resumed at 2:30 p. m. at which time appellant filed his exceptions to the return, the same being overruling. The appellant then requested additional time to plead further, which request was denied. The court then denied appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordered appellant remanded to appellee's custody. On September 2, 1960, appellant filed his motion for a new trial, the same being overruled on September 6, 1960.
Appellant's Assignment of Error here contains five specifications, of these we need and do take cognizance of only the first, which reads as follows:
Under the circumstances, as shown by the record in this case, we are constrained to agree with a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. State
...to have adequate time for preparation and investigation. Calvert v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 119, 239 N.E.2d 697; Phillips v. Grim (1962), 243 Ind. 161, 183 N.E.2d 597; see Hoy v. State (1974), 225 Ind. 428, 75 N.E.2d 915. It is equally well-settled that a motion for continuance based on a no......