State ex rel. Dowd v. Superior Court of La Porte Cnty., 27568.

• Decision Date: 07 October 1941
• Docket Number: No. 27568.,27568.
• Citation: 36 N.E.2d 765,219 Ind. 17
• Parties: STATE ex rel. DOWD, Warden, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LA PORTE COUNTY.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

219 Ind. 17

36 N.E.2d 765

STATE ex rel. DOWD, Warden,

v.SUPERIOR COURT OF LA PORTE COUNTY.

No. 27568.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 7, 1941.

Proceeding by the State of Indiana, on the relation of Alfred F. Dowd, as Warden of the Indiana State Prison, against the La Porte Superior Court of La Porte County, Indiana, James F. Gleason, Jr., as Special Judge of the La Porte Superior Court of La Porte County, Indiana, for a writ prohibiting the respondent from issuing a writ of habeas corpus on the petition of one John Botwinski. On respondent's petition for rehearing after issuance of a writ.

Petition for rehearing denied.George N. Beamer, Atty. Gen., and Norman E. Duke, and John R. Walsh, Deputy Attys. Gen., for relator.

Oscar B. Thiel, of Gary, for respondent.

FANSLER, Chief Justice.

On June 10, 1941, the relator filed a petition seeking a writ prohibiting the respondent from issuing a writ of habeas corpus on the petition of one John Botwinski.

It appears without controversy that Botwinski was charged with bank robbery in the Jasper Circuit Court, a court of general criminal jurisdiction; that he entered a plea of guilty; that there was a judgment finding him guilty, and that he was sentenced to the Indiana State Prison, and a commitment, regular in form, issued on said judgment, and that he was held by the relator under said judgment. These facts were fully disclosed and were not controverted in the trial court. It was the petitioner's contention that the judgment was void because he was deprived of the services of an attorney at the time of his arraignment, and had no attorney at the time he entered his plea of guilty. On the filing of the original action in this court, a temporary writ issued, and, after a return, which did not controvert these facts, the writ was made permanent by an order of this court entered on June 23, 1941, without an opinion.

On petition for rehearing, the respondent points to section 5 of article 7 of the Constitution of Indiana, which provides: ‘The Supreme Court shall, upon the decision of every case, give a statement in writing of each question arising in the record of such case, and the decision of the Court thereon,’ and asserts that the court erred in failing to file a written opinion upon final disposition of the case. It has been concluded that the respondent is right in his contention, and that the constitutional provision requires an opinion in writing in original actions as well as in appeals.

C...