State ex rel. Stiles v. Hendricks Circuit Court, 472S39

• Citation: 281 N.E.2d 89,258 Ind. 318
• Decision Date: 12 April 1972
• Docket Number: No. 472S39,472S39
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
• Parties: STATE of Indiana on the relation of Donald D. STILES, Relator, v. The HENDRICKS CIRCUIT COURT and the Honorable Richard J. Groover, Regular Judge, Respondents.

Page 89

281 N.E.2d 89

258 Ind. 318

STATE of Indiana on the relation of Donald D. STILES, Relator, v. The HENDRICKS CIRCUIT COURT and the Honorable Richard J Groover, Regular Judge, Respondents.

No. 472S39.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

April 12, 1972.

Ferdiand Samper, Sr., Indianapolis, for relator.

Seth B. Lewis, Pros. Atty., Danville, for respondents.

OPINION ON DENIAL OF WRIT OF MANDATE AND PROHIBITION

ARTERBURN, Chief Justice.

This matter came on for hearing upon the Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Prohibition filed on behalf of Relator and Respondents' Verified Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Mandate and Prohibition.

The verified petition for Writ alleges that Relator was convicted of the charge of rape by a jury on March 9, 1972, in Cause No. CR 71--38 in the Hendricks Circuit Court and that before sentencing, Relator's brother filed with the Trial Court a petition for examination of Relator as a possible criminal sexual deviant, pursuant to the provisions of Burns' Anno.Stat. (1971) § 9--4001 et seq.

Said petition for Writ alleges that the procedure prescribed by Burns' Anno.Stat. (1971) § 9--4001 et seq. cannot be utilized because it is in conflict with Cr. Rule 11 of this Court, requiring that the trial court 'shall' sentence a defendant convicted in a criminal case on a plea of not guilty within thirty (30) days of the finding or verdict of guilty. The Relator seeks a Writ of Prohibition from this Court to prevent the Respondent from sentencing him before the expiration of the thirty (30) days of the finding or verdict of guilty, as required by Cr. Rule 11 of this Court.

Motion for a continuance of the sentencing schedule for March 28, 1972, at 1:00 p.m. was denied by the trial court and said Court further held that the petition for examination of the Relator as a possible criminal sexual deviant is unconstitutional. The Relator contends that this ruling by the trial court will prevent him from the benefits of the procedure prescribed by the criminal sexual deviant statute.

Criminal Rule 11 of this Court provides in part as follows:

'In all courts of superior jurisdiction having general jurisdiction to try felony charges, the trial court shall sentence a defendant convicted in a criminal case on a plea of not guilty within thirty (30) days of the finding or verdict of guilty.'

Then follows an said rule various requirements imposed upon the trial court advising the defendant of various rights to which he is entitled and of various duties imposed upon him if he wishes to appeal from such finding or verdict of guilty.

Burns' Ind.Stat.Anno. (1971) § 9--4003 provides:

'Petition for examination as criminal sexual deviant--Who may file.--(a) A petition may be made that a person be examined as a possible criminal sexual deviant after he has been convicted of and prior to sentencing for a sexual offense not excluded by the scope of this chapter ( §§ 9--4001--9--4037).'

'(b) The petition may be made by the prosecuting attorney of the county in which the person was convicted, or by the court wherein the person was convicted, or by the convicted person, or a person on behalf of the convicted person.'

The crucial element in the foregoing section of the criminal sexual deviant statute...