Robison v. State, 3--1275A292
| Decision Date | 16 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 3--1275A292,3--1275A292 |
| Citation | 172 Ind.App. 205,359 N.E.2d 924 |
| Parties | Ronald Kay ROBISON, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Timothy J. Connor, Fort Wayne, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Charles W. Vincent, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
The appellant was charged with theft and was tried by the court. At the conclusion of the trial the court made the following entry,
'Finding of guilty as charged and judgment is now by the court withheld.'
We are aware of the practice of some trial courts in utilizing this form of entry in certain cases. However, it is not authorized by statute or rule. See, e.g., Indiana Rules of Procedure, Criminal Rule 11; IC 1971, 35--8--1A--1, 2.
A defendant may, if he chooses, compel the court to discharge its duty to promptly pronounce judgment and sentence. Taylor v. State (1976), Ind.App., 358 N.E.2d 167.
Where the court deliberately postpones indefinitely the pronouncement of judgment and sentence, the court loses jurisdiction to sentence and upon application the defendant should be discharged. Warner v. State (1924), 194 Ind. 426, 143 N.E. 288; Smith v. State (1919), 188 Ind. 64, 121 N.E. 829; Taylor, supra.
However, a 'judgment withheld' entry is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order. AP 4(B). It is therefore not appealable. Clanton v. State (1974), Ind.App., 308 N.E.2d 726; Spall v. State (1973), Ind.App., 295 N.E.2d 852.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v. Eli Lilly and Co.
... ... The trial court found that his claim of retaliatory discharge does not state a valid claim which qualifies as an exception to the employment at will doctrine recognized by the ... ...
-
Reaves v. State
...Ohio Reformatory. As appellant points out, courts may not withhold judgment nor indefinitely postpone sentencing, Robison v. State (1977), 172 Ind.App. 205, 359 N.E.2d 924, nor impose sentences which begin in futuro, Holland v. State (1976), 265 Ind. 216, 352 N.E.2d 752. Here, however, the ......
-
Vantine v. Elkhart Brass Mfg. Co., Inc.
... ... On November 26, 1980, Vantine filed a claim for workmen's compensation benefits with the State of Indiana and a hearing was held on June 15, 1982, before a Single Hearing Member of the Indiana ... ...
- Cooley v. State