Ruggirello v. State, 968S159
| Citation | 246 N.E.2d 481,17 Ind.Dec. 273,252 Ind. 144 |
| Decision Date | 22 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 968S159,968S159 |
| Parties | Carlo RUGGIRELLO, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Edward C. Hilgendorf, South Bend, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Duejean C. Garrett, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction of the crime of entering to commit a felony as described in Burns' Indians Statutes Annotated § 10--704. Trial was had by jury.
Following his conviction, the appellant filed a motion for new trial pro se. Thereafter, counsel was appointed to represent the appellant on an appeal. After the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of the verdict of the jury, a pleading designated as an amended motion for new trial was filed by counsel and was subsequently overruled by the Court.
The sole assignment of error was the overruling of appellant's amended motion for a new trial. Neither the original motion for new trial filed by the appellant pro se nor the amended motion for new trial contained a memorandum as required by Rule 1--14B. Therefore, the appellant has waived any consideration of his grounds for new trial that the verdict of the jury is contrary to law or that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence.
An examination of appellant's brief discloses that all other grounds alleged in the amended motion for new trial were waived by reason of failure to address an argument thereto as required by Rule 2--17 of this Court.
The Attorney General has correctly raised the foregoing defects in the procedure followed by the appellant in this case and in his brief. Notwithstanding these defects, the Attorney General has addressed an argument to the merits of the case.
The evidence discloses that the appellant was first observed at 3:00 A.M. by Mishawaka police officers on routine patrol. They had discovered that two establishments had been broken into and decided to check other businesses in the community. As they pulled up in front of an all-night automatic laundry service, they saw a man come out of the door who appeared to have something hidden under his coat. As he walked he kept watching the police officers and quickened his pace. The officers called to him to stop, but he walked faster. The officers got out of the automobile and shouted at him to halt. The broke into a run. The officers again shouted to halt, and each officer fired a shot. When appellant then failed to halt, the officer testified he lowered his aim and fired.
After appellant continued to run, an object dropped from under his coat. He went on a short distance and fell into a yard from wounds received from the shots fired by police officers. The object which had dropped from his coat during flight was recovered by the police officers and found to be a 12 3/4 inch screw driver.
The officers further testified that appellant was not carrying any laundry as he left the establishment nor were there any other customers in the building. They further testified that they observed what appeared to be fresh pry marks on a Pepsi Cola vending machine in the laundry. One of the co-owners of the laundry testified that she had taken the money from the vending machines at 5:00 P.M. the afternoon before and at that time there were no fresh pry marks on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lockmondy's Adoption, Matter of
...motion to correct errors or in the argument portion of appellant's brief. Indiana Rule of Procedure, AP. 8.3(A)(7); Ruggirello v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 144, 246 N.E.2d 481. Before reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, it is important that we explain the standard of appellate review to......
-
Lisenko v. State
...484; Easton v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 204, 280 N.E.2d 307; Hobbs v. State (1969), 253 Ind. 195, 252 N.E.2d 498; Ruggirello v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 144, 246 N.E.2d 481; Davis v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 133, 239 N.E.2d 601; Kondrup v. State (1968), 250 Ind. 320, 235 N.E.2d 703. Where, howeve......
-
Dunn v. Jenkins
...were not raised at the trial court level. They are therefore not appropriate for review at this time. AP. 8.3(A)(7); Ruggirello v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 144, 246 N.E.2d 481. We hold the trial court did not err in holding that the members of subclass "E" inmates were not deprived of due pro......
-
Hobbs v. State
...theft by breaking open and removing the contents of the vending machine. Stanley v. State (1969), Ind., 245 N.E.2d 149; Ruggirello v. State (1969), Ind., 246 N.E.2d 481. The appellant next raises the question that his conviction on the so-called lesser included offense of entering to commit......