Stokes v. State, 1--1172A98
Decision Date | 06 August 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 1--1172A98,1--1172A98 |
Parties | Jerry STOKES, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Joe D. Black, Vincennes, for appellant.
Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Colker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant-appellant Stokes appeals from a conviction of safe burglary.
On October 19, 1971, Stokes was charged by affidavit with safe burglary. On November 24, 1971, Stokes filed a motion for an early trial pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(B) and on February 9, 1972, filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to try the cause within fifty (50) judicial days. After hearing argument on the motion, the court took the ruling under advisement and set the cause for trial on March 15, 1972.
On February 25, 1972, the court overruled Stokes' motion to dismiss, finding that Stokes had failed to serve the Prosecuting Attorney with a copy of his request for early trial. Counsel for Stokes subsequently petitioned for reconsideration of his motion to dismiss and filed an affidavit stating that to the best of his knowledge, a copy of the motion for early trial had in fact been served upon the Prosecutor. The petition was overruled.
Trial of the cause resulted in a deadlocked jury. Upon retrial on May 1, 1972, the jury found Stokes guilty as charged. He was subsequently committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term of not less than five (5) nor more than ten (10) years.
Stokes timely filed his Motion to Correct Errors which was overruled, and this appeal follows.
The first issue presented for review is whether the trial court erred in overruling Stokes' motion to dismiss for failure to try the cause within fifty (50) judicial days.
Criminal Rule 4(B) provides as follows:
Stokes argues on appeal that even assuming no service on the Prosecutor, the same is not required since Trial Rule 5, requiring service of papers, applies only to civil cases. However, we would direct Stokes' attention to Criminal Rule 18 which provides:
The more narrow question for determination in this appeal is whether Stokes' failure to serve a copy of his motion for an early trial on the Prosecuting Attorney was a fatal defect requiring the trial judge to overrule the motion to dismiss.
An examination of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
- Indiana-Kentucky Elec. Corp. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, INDIANA-KENTUCKY
-
City of Kennewick v. Vandergriff
...S.Ct. 2182 (1972), a claim brought under JCrR 3.08(f)(2) such as the defendant's is essentially unarguable. See Stokes v. State, 157 Ind.App. 273, 276, 299 N.E.2d 647 (1973). The language of JCrR 3.08 makes it clear that the trial court has no discretion in resetting an improper trial date.......
-
Crosby v. State, 82A01-9202-CR-28
...The direction to discharge is mandatory; nothing will prevent the rule's operation save its own exceptions. Stokes v. State (1973), 157 Ind.App. 273, 299 N.E.2d 647, 649. The express language of the exception does not preclude the interpretation sought by the State, namely, that a defendant......