Wombles v. State, No. 878S177

Docket NºNo. 878S177
Citation383 N.E.2d 1037, 270 Ind. 181
Case DateJanuary 03, 1979
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 1037

383 N.E.2d 1037
270 Ind. 181
Codell Dennis WOMBLES, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 878S177.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Jan. 3, 1979.

[270 Ind. 182] James A. Neel, Davis, Neel & Headlee, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Page 1038

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert J. Black, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

HUNTER, Justice.

A jury found Codell Dennis Wombles guilty of robbery and of criminal confinement. The trial court ordered the verdict on the criminal confinement count vacated and merged into the robbery count. The defendant now appeals and asserts four alleged errors:

1. The trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a continuance;

2. The court erred in allowing the prosecutor to question a witness concerning prior robbery arrests the witness had made;

3. The court erred in refusing to give the defendant's tendered instruction on intoxication; and

4. The court erred in giving the jury an improper verdict form on the criminal confinement count.

The facts most favorable to the state reveal that on October 24, 1977, Herman L. Winkler, 69 years of age, opened his residence door to two individuals. He identified the defendant as one of the individuals. Winkler was told, "We want your money . . . lay (sic) on the floor, face down." The assailants threatened Winkler with a knife and said, "You [270 Ind. 183] try to get up from here and you're dead." Then, the attackers put Winkler in a wardrobe and told him to stay there. Winkler told them that they could take anything he had but that he did not have any more money. To this point in the robbery, they had taken Winkler's billfold containing three twenty-dollar bills and one one-dollar bill, Winkler's ring, Winkler's watch, and Winkler's coin purse. Winkler told them that he could get them cash by cashing a check; he stated at trial that he had hoped to get somewhere where someone would know what was going on and he would be helped. Winkler was escorted by the assailants to his car and then to a gas station, a drug store, and a grocery store in an attempt to get a check cashed. At the grocery store, Winkler had reached the checkout counter with several grocery items when he saw a deputy sheriff in another checkout lane. Winkler shoved the grocery cart against the defendant's legs and shouted, "I'm being robbed, he has a knife." The deputy sheriff chased the defendant and apprehended him in the supermarket parking lot; the items taken from Winkler were found on the defendant's person.

I.

The defendant moved for a continuance just before the start of his trial. The trial court denied his motion, and the defendant states that the denial constituted error. We disagree. The bases for defendant's motion for a continuance were that he wanted a new attorney and that his grandmother was not present. The defendant had been granted several continuances prior to trial. On...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Parr v. State, No. 1083S363
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 9 Marzo 1987
    ...or immediately before trial because such a substitution would require the court to grant a continuance. Wombles v. State (1979) Ind. , 383 N.E.2d 1037; Magley v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 618, 335 N.E.2d 397 N.E.2d at 300. Defendant argues that he was a resident of the State of Illinois, that ......
  • Harris v. State, No. 780S211
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 5 Noviembre 1981
    ...trial and we do not withdraw from that position now. See, Keys v. State, (1979) Ind., 390 N.E.2d 148; Wombles v. State, (1979) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 1037; German v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 67, 373 N.E.2d In Page v. State, (1956) 235 Ind. 628, 137 N.E.2d 405, this Court held it was not error for t......
  • Perry v. State, No. 2-577A178
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 13 Agosto 1979
    ...rule; rather, the issue is decided by the trial court's exercise of discretion, reviewable only for abuse Wombles v. State, (1979) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 1037; Phillips v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 386 N.E.2d From the record in this case it appears appellant Perry hired attorney John Hampton for hi......
  • Blankenship v. State, No. 883S288
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 18 Mayo 1984
    ...of these competing interests is decided by the trial court's exercise of discretion, reviewable only for abuse. Wombles v. State, (1979) 270 Ind. 181, 383 N.E.2d 1037; Perry v. State, (1979) 181 Ind.App. 553, 393 N.E.2d 204. Among the factors to be considered are the timing of the motion an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Parr v. State, No. 1083S363
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 9 Marzo 1987
    ...or immediately before trial because such a substitution would require the court to grant a continuance. Wombles v. State (1979) Ind. , 383 N.E.2d 1037; Magley v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 618, 335 N.E.2d 397 N.E.2d at 300. Defendant argues that he was a resident of the State of Illinois, that ......
  • Harris v. State, No. 780S211
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 5 Noviembre 1981
    ...trial and we do not withdraw from that position now. See, Keys v. State, (1979) Ind., 390 N.E.2d 148; Wombles v. State, (1979) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 1037; German v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 67, 373 N.E.2d In Page v. State, (1956) 235 Ind. 628, 137 N.E.2d 405, this Court held it was not error for t......
  • Perry v. State, No. 2-577A178
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 13 Agosto 1979
    ...rule; rather, the issue is decided by the trial court's exercise of discretion, reviewable only for abuse Wombles v. State, (1979) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 1037; Phillips v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 386 N.E.2d From the record in this case it appears appellant Perry hired attorney John Hampton for hi......
  • Blankenship v. State, No. 883S288
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 18 Mayo 1984
    ...of these competing interests is decided by the trial court's exercise of discretion, reviewable only for abuse. Wombles v. State, (1979) 270 Ind. 181, 383 N.E.2d 1037; Perry v. State, (1979) 181 Ind.App. 553, 393 N.E.2d 204. Among the factors to be considered are the timing of the motion an......
  • 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