Platt v. State, No. 1--1074A153
| Docket Nº | No. 1--1074A153 |
| Citation | 341 N.E.2d 219, 168 Ind.App. 55 |
| Case Date | February 06, 1976 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Page 219
v.
STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rehearing Denied March 15, 1976.
[168 Ind.App. 56]
Page 220
Harriette Bailey Conn, Public Defender, Eugene C. Hollander, Deputy Public Defender, for defendant-appellant.Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Walter F. Lockhart, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before ROBERTSON, C.J., and LOWDERMILK and LYBROOK, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant-defendant Platt is appealing the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief under Ind. Rules of Procedure, Post-Conviction Remedy Rule 1 (PCR 1). The issues raised by Platt include inadequate counsel; prejudice because of being present in the courtroom in chains and shackles; denial of a speedy trial; and, he was convicted under a statute that is unconstitutional for vagueness and overbreadth. Additionally, Platt asserts he was denied procedural due process for three reasons during the PCR process.
We find no error and accordingly affirm the trial court's decision.
Platt has the burden of establishing grounds for his post-conviction relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Here, where Platt is appealing from a negative judgment, reversal can be obtained only upon demonstration that the evidence is without conflict and leads to but one reasonable conclusion and that the trial court reached the opposite conclusion. Willoughby v. State (1975), Ind.App., 330 N.E.2d 120; Fraley v. State (1975), Ind.App., 323 N.E.2d 239.
As to the inadequacy of counsel there must be 'strong and convincing' proof to overcome the presumption that an attorney discharged his full duty. Langley v. State (1968), 250 Ind. 29, 232 N.E.2d
Page 221
611; Schmittler v. State (1950), 228 Ind. 450, 93 N.E.2d 184. There [168 Ind.App. 57] was testimony at Platt's PCR hearing to refute, directly or by inference, the allegations of specific instances of incompetence and inadequacy of counsel.In a similar vein there was conflicting testimony as to whether or not Platt appeared in court wearing chains and shackles.
The evidence on both of the foregoing issues was not without conflict. Therefore, the trial court could have reasonably reached the conclusion that it did.
Platt's assertion that he was denied a speedy trial in violation of Ind. Rules of Crim. Procedure, Rule 4, is supported only by meager information concerning the dates involved. In any event, the record provides testimony by Platt's trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Henry
...persons of ordinary intelligence what their conduct must be in order for them to be guilty of a violation thereof. Platt v. State, [168 Ind.App. 55, 341 N.E.2d 219 (1976) ]. The criteria for determining what constitutes obscene material subject to state regulation was delineated in Miller v......
-
Ford v. State, No. 3-1276A303
...ordinary intelligence what their conduct must be in order for them to be guilty of a violation thereof. Platt v. State (1976), Ind.App., 341 N.E.2d 219. The criteria for determining what constitutes obscene material subject to state regulation was delineated in Miller v. California, supra, ......
-
Hunter v. State, No. 1--976A168
...constitutional challenge is vagueness of the statute we must apply the test of specificity provided by Platt v. State (1976), Ind.App., 341 N.E.2d 219: 'A statute will not be found unconstitutionally vague if individuals of ordinary intelligence would comprehend it to adequately inform them......
-
Ingram v. State, No. 4-883A278
...relevant authority. It is thereby waived. Guardiola v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 404, 405-06, 375 N.E.2d 1105, 1107; Platt v. State, (1976) 168 Ind.App. 55, 58, 341 N.E.2d 219, II. Fundamental Error Ingram next contends the trial court committed fundamental error by not holding a competency he......
-
State v. Henry
...persons of ordinary intelligence what their conduct must be in order for them to be guilty of a violation thereof. Platt v. State, [168 Ind.App. 55, 341 N.E.2d 219 (1976) ]. The criteria for determining what constitutes obscene material subject to state regulation was delineated in Miller v......
-
Ford v. State, No. 3-1276A303
...ordinary intelligence what their conduct must be in order for them to be guilty of a violation thereof. Platt v. State (1976), Ind.App., 341 N.E.2d 219. The criteria for determining what constitutes obscene material subject to state regulation was delineated in Miller v. California, supra, ......
-
Hunter v. State, No. 1--976A168
...constitutional challenge is vagueness of the statute we must apply the test of specificity provided by Platt v. State (1976), Ind.App., 341 N.E.2d 219: 'A statute will not be found unconstitutionally vague if individuals of ordinary intelligence would comprehend it to adequately inform them......
-
Ingram v. State, No. 4-883A278
...relevant authority. It is thereby waived. Guardiola v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 404, 405-06, 375 N.E.2d 1105, 1107; Platt v. State, (1976) 168 Ind.App. 55, 58, 341 N.E.2d 219, II. Fundamental Error Ingram next contends the trial court committed fundamental error by not holding a competency he......