Pisello, In re

Citation155 Ind.App. 484,293 N.E.2d 228
Decision Date12 March 1973
Docket NumberNo. 3-273A14,3-273A14
PartiesIn the Matter of Anthony Eugene PISELLO a minor Under the Age of Eighteen Years.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 228

293 N.E.2d 228
155 Ind.App. 484
In the Matter of Anthony Eugene PISELLO a minor Under the
Age of Eighteen Years.
No. 3-273A14.
Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District.
March 12, 1973.

[155 Ind.App. 486]

Page 229

Stephen A. Kray, La Porte, for appellant.

Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Zaban, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.


This is an application for a stay of execution pending appeal of a judgment of the La Porte Circuit Court adjudging Anthony Eugene Pisello (Pisello) to be a juvenile [155 Ind.App. 487] delinquent and ordering him committed to the custody of the Board of Trustees of the Indiana Boys' School.

On January 30, 1973, Anthony Eugene Pisello, age 16, was declared to be a juvenile delinquent by the La Porte Circuit Court and was committed to the Indiana Boys' School. This order followed a hearing on a petition alleging Pisello had committed first degree burglary and theft of U.S. mail, acts which if committed by an adult would be crimes not punishable by death or life imprisonment.

On February 2, 1973, Pisello petitioned the La Porte Circuit Court for a stay of execution of its judgment and for his release on bail pending appeal of this judgment. The Court denied this petition on February 5, 1973, and of February 6, 1973, Pisello was transported to the Indiana Boys' School. This application for Supersedeas was filed on February 9, 1973.

The State contends this Court is without jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action because no Motion to Correct Errors has been filed in the trial court and no appeal to this court has been perfected.

Appellate Rule 6(B) provides in part as follows: (Emphasis added)

'(B) BONDS IN APPEALS. No appeal bond shall be necessary to perfect an appeal from any judgment or appealable interlocutory order. Enforcement of a judgment or appealable interlocutory order, however, will be suspended during appeal upon the giving of an adequate bond with approved sureties. The trial court or judge thereof shall have jurisdiction to fix and approve the bond and order a stay pending an appeal as well as prior to the appeal. If the stay is denied by the trial court of judge thereof, the appellate tribunal may reconsider the application at any time after denial, upon a proper showing by certified copies of the trial court's action and grant or deny the same and fix the bond . . ..'

This rule recognizes that requiring a Motion to Correct Errors to be filed, and ruled upon, a praecipe filed, and record [155 Ind.App. 488] of the proceedings filed with the appellate tribunal before any stay of execution of the judgment can be issued would entirely defeat the purpose of the emergency relief provided by rules A.P. 6 and T.R. 62, IC 1971, 34-5-1-1.

A.P. 6(B) clearly provides that a stay can be issued by the trial court prior to the perfection of the appeal, as well as while the perfected appeal is pending in the reviewing court. The rule also expressly provides that the appellate tribunal, to which the appeal will be taken, may reconsider the application for a stay at any time after the trial court's denial of the stay, and does not limit the jurisdiction of the appellate tribunal to stay to the period after an appeal has been perfected.

Here, after the judgment, but prior to the perfection of an appeal, Pisello petitioned the trial court for a stay of execution of the judgment. After the La Porte Circuit Court denied the stay, Pisello properly applied to the court with jurisdiction over the planned appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals, for reconsideration of this application. Therefore, pursuant to A.P. 6(B), this court has jurisdiction to reconsider Pisello's application for a stay of execution

Page 230

of the judgment of the La Porte Circuit Court.

The issue presented by the application is whether a minor, adjudged to be a delinquent in a juvenile proceeding, is entitled to a stay of execution of judgment and release on bond pending an appeal of the delinquency adjudication.

The right to appeal is a statutory, not a constitutional right, and the Indiana Legislature and the Indiana...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Woods v. State, 1-281A63
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 29 Septiembre 1981
    ...(1965) 246 Ind. 452, 206 N.E.2d 371. However, the method and procedure is generally a matter conferred by statute. In re Pisello, (1973) 155 Ind.App. 484, 293 N.E.2d 228. For the most part, a conviction based on a plea of guilty cannot be challenged by a motion to correct errors and a direc......
  • Scruggs v. State, 3--1173A156
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 16 Octubre 1974
    ...compliance with the conditions of his bond. There is no constitutional right to bail pending appeal. In re Pisello (1973), Ind.App., 293 N.E.2d 228. [161 Ind.App. 681] We affirm the convictions. The trial court is instructed to modify the malicious trespass sentence so that it will be consi......
  • Haynes v. State, 3--872A46
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 12 Marzo 1973
    ...Page 210 might be imposed for the felony such defendant was entering to commit. For an extreme example, under the holding of Lee if the [155 Ind.App. 484] defendant was convicted of entering to commit a felony, to-wit: First Degree Murder and found guilty of that charge alone his maximum se......
  • Indiana Planned Parenthood Affiliates Ass'n, Inc. v. Pearson, 82-2827
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 26 Agosto 1983
    ...relief. In both cases, the effect of the stay is to preserve the status quo ante. An example of the former type is In re Pisello, 155 Ind.App. 484, 293 N.E.2d 228 (1973), cited by the state to show the availability of stays in emergencies. In that case, the court of appeals held that it had......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT