State ex rel. Steers v. Criminal Court of Lake County, 29035

Decision Date17 June 1953
Docket NumberNo. 29035,29035
Citation113 N.E.2d 44,232 Ind. 443
PartiesSTATE ex rel. STEERS, Atty. Gen., v. CRIMINAL COURT OF LAKE COUNTY et al.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Carl Humble, Deputy Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

William J. Murray, Judge, Lake Criminal Court, pro se, Harry S. Long, Sp. Judge of Lake Criminal Court, pro se, E. Miles Norton, Crown Point, for respondents.

EMMERT, Judge.

The respondents have called our attention to our statement as to the time the Attorney General first objected to the proceedings by which the special judge purported to suspend the sentence. The certified copies of the order book records of the Criminal Court of Lake County (Order Book No. 39, p. 55, December 26, 1952) disclose that 'the State of Indiana by its Prosecuting Attorney having refused to participate in the proceedings herein, does not appear, and the defendant now files herein notice of the Attorney General of the State of Indiana and proof of service thereof made on the 4th day of December, 1952 * * *.' No appearance or objection was made by the Attorney General at the time the purported suspension of sentence was entered by the special judge.

However, on February 20, 1953, C. Ballard Harrison by counsel filed written objection to the filing, on said date, of a petition by the Attorney General of the State of Indiana to require the respondent Murray, is regular judge, to strike out and expunge from the record the purported judgment by which the special judge pretended to suspend the sentence of imprisonment.

The record brought to our attention does not disclose that the Prosecuting Attorney of Lake County was ever mentioned after the entry of December 26th when he 'refused to participate in the proceedings,' but this did not waive any rights of the State.

We have already decided that 'The entries made by the special judge after the affirmance of the judgment by us on appeal are void and of no effect, and should be stricken from the record.' The failure of the preceding Attorney General to appear and resist the suspension of sentence did not make a void entry valid, nor does any statute give the Attorney General authority to waive this question of jurisdiction.

There is no merit to the remaining points presented by the petition for rehearing.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

DRAPER, J., not participating.

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Tidwell v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • March 14, 1961
    ...in his county. See Hobart v. Hobart, 45 Iowa 501; State ex rel. Steers v. Crim. Court of Lake County, 232 Ind. 443, 112 N.E.2d 445, 113 N.E.2d 44. Rule 24's requirement may seem strict, but to avoid the merest possibility of usurpation by interlopers it is necessary that there be such a cer......
  • State ex rel. Sufana v. Superior Court of Lake County
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • October 18, 1978
    ...to serve his time. State ex rel. Steers, Attorney General v. Criminal Court of Lake County et al., (1953) 232 Ind. 443, 112 N.E.2d 445, 113 N.E.2d 44. It was clearly the intention of the legislature in amending the statute in 1972, to give discretion to the trial judge to change his origina......
  • State ex rel. Nicholas v. Criminal Court of Marion County, 29861
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • November 19, 1959
    ...re Harrison, 1953, 231 Ind. 665, 109 N.E.2d 722; State ex rel. Steers v. Lake County Criminal Court, 1953, 232 Ind. 443, 112 N.E.2d 445, 113 N.E.2d 44; Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 1931, 202 Ind. 641, 177 N.E. 454.1 Acts 1893, ch. 33, § 1, p. 32, being § 4-3511, Burns' 1946 ...
  • State v. Rankin
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • April 4, 1973
    ...created by statute and is not a constitutional office. State ex rel. Steers v. Lake Criminal Court (1953), 232 Ind. 443, 112 N.E.2d 445, 113 N.E.2d 44. The Attorney General can therefore only derive authority via statute. The Court of Appeals then stated that it is incumbent upon the Attorn......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT