State ex rel. Scott v. St. Joseph Superior Court
| Decision Date | 10 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 580S156,580S156 |
| Citation | 274 Ind. 605,413 N.E.2d 565 |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana on the relation of Craig Allen SCOTT, Relator, v. ST. JOSEPH SUPERIOR COURT, and Honorable Norman Kopec, Judge Thereof, Respondents. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Douglas D. Seely, Jr., Mishawaka, for relator.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Palmer K. Ward, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for respondents.
Relator Scott has prosecuted this original action in this Court seeking a writ of mandate to require the respondent court to consider his eligibility for bail pending appeal, and if warranted grant such bail. Relator was charged with the murder of one Telesfor Radomski, such offense occurring on September 18, 1978. He was convicted of this murder on January 14, 1980. Respondent then set an appeal bond for relator in the sum of $7500. Relator posted this bond and remained free until March 7, 1980, when respondent revoked his bail and ordered him arrested. This revocation and later refusal on April 18, 1980, to reinstate the bail were based upon respondent's belated discovery of Ind.Code § 35-4-6-1.5. That statute became effective on September 1, 1979, after the offense of which relator was convicted took place and relator therefore contends before us that respondent's application of that statute to him was violative of the ex post facto provisions of the Indiana and federal Constitutions. Relator seeks a writ from this Court mandating respondent to consider his eligibility for bail pending appeal under the law existing and in effect at the time of the commission of the offense.
Indiana Code § 35-4-6-1.5, which became effective September 1, 1979, provides as follows:
Indiana Code § 35-4-6-1 (repealed) which was in effect prior to September 1, 1979, and at the time of the offense of which appellant stands convicted provided:
"Whenever a person is convicted in any court of any offense except murder, and he has appealed or desires to appeal the conviction and has given notice thereof as required by law, he shall be admitted to bail pending appeal upon compliance with this chapter."
Relator has not brought himself within provisions of either of these statutes. He stands convicted of murder. Murder is presently a class A felony and pursuant to Ind.Code § 35-50-2-2, the sentence therefor may not be suspended. Relator was barred from consideration for bail pending appeal by the express terms of both statutes because he seeks bail following a conviction for murder. On this basis relator's claim for relief fails. Since this case can be resolved on state law grounds, we are...
To continue reading
Request your trial