State ex rel. Fulton v. Schannen, 28159.
| Decision Date | 30 January 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 28159.,28159. |
| Citation | 64 N.E.2d 798,224 Ind. 55 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. FULTON v. SCHANNEN. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Proceeding for a writ of mandate by the State of Indiana, on the relation of James E. Fulton, against Judge Wm. H. Schannen to compel respondent to hear a petition for a writ of error coram nobis.
Order in accordance with opinion.
James E. Fulton, of Michigan City, pro se.
Judge Wm. H. Schannen, pro se.
Relator Fulton seeks release from the State Prison. In a verified petition asking us to compel respondent to hear a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, it is alleged that respondent wrote the warden that his court ‘would not recognize a Petition filed out of the Prison, by any inmate.’ This seemed to require an answer, which has been filed. It appears therefrom that on a plea of guilty to arson in the second degree Fulton was sentenced June 4, 1945, and three months later sent to respondent the coram nobis petition which was noted filed. Respondent sent the petition to the Attorney General requesting that he submit it to the Public Defender. Afterwards ‘respondent wrote to the warden of the Indiana State Prison, suggesting to him that inasmuch as the legislature of the State of Indiana had passed an act creating the office of public defender, any future petitions for writs of error coram nobis should be filed by said public defender.’ In his answer respondent also asks us ‘to notify said public defender to appear in this cause and represent the interests of the petitioner,’ saying that the ‘court will hear said petition at any time it is presented to him.’
The filing of his petition pro se indicates that Fulton does not care to avail himself of the services of the Public Defender. If he has a meritorious claim he ought to welcome such representation but it can not be forced upon him. The defender may, with the consent of the court, appear as amicus curiae, even over relator's objection, so it is not improper to give him notice. But if respondent desires that such notice be given, it should be mailed directly to the Public Defender, not relayed through this court nor through the Attorney General whose office has no connection with that of the Public Defender. While this court under the 1945 Act creating the office, Laws 1945, c. 38, § 13-1401, Burns' 1942 Replacement, Supp., must appoint the Public Defender and under § 13-1404, approve expenditures in connection with his office, we are not required to direct the discharge of the duties of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCrary v. State
...appears in his sound judgment to have no merit. In re Kretchmer, 1946, 224 Ind. 559, 69 N.E.2d 598; State ex rel. Fulton v. Schannen, 1946, 224 Ind. 55, 58, 64 N.E.2d 798; Sweet v. State, 1948, 226 Ind. 566, 81 N.E.2d 679.' State ex rel. Casey v. Murray, 1952, 231 Ind. 74, 106 N.E.2d 911, 9......
-
Willoughby v. State
...v. State, Ind.1961, 173 N.E.2d 300; State ex rel. Casey v. Murray, 1952, 231 Ind. 74, 77, 106 N.E.2d 911; State ex rel. Fulton v. Schannen, 1946, 224 Ind. 55, 58, 64 N.E.2d 798. Neither is he authorized to order a transcript at public expense for prisoners whom he does not In this case the ......
-
Dixon v. State
...relief is not based on the original conviction.2 Ind.Ann.Stat. § 13--1401 (Burns 1956), IC 1971, 33--1--7--1; State ex rel. Fulton v. Schannen, (1946) 224 Ind. 55, 64 N.E.2d 798.3 See In re Nash (1964), 61 Cal.2d 491, 39 Cal.Rptr. 205, 393 P.2d 405.4 '(1) that the conviction or the sentence......
-
State ex rel. Casey v. Murray
...appears in his sound judgment to have no merit. In re Kretchmer, 1946, 224 Ind. 559, 69 N.E.2d 598; State ex rel. Fulton v. Schannen, 1946, 224 Ind. 55, 58, 64 N.E.2d 798; Sweet v. State, 1948, 226 Ind. 566, 81 N.E.2d The court has previously extended time for a delayed appeal for this rela......