*1 inferences or draw appearance of the child eration the therefrom. in court erred made that has been
No contention proper and decorum failing order to maintain courtroom. part of the trial on the no error conclude
We must been demonstrated. court denied.
Petition Achor, J., J., Jackson, J., in result. concurs
Myers, dissents. Rehearing de- Reported N. 745. E. 2d E. 2d 219. Indiana.
Burton denied November February 11, 1965.] *2 Baker, Robert Defender, S. Public M. and Sid Cleveland, Deputy Defender, Indianapolis, Public of for appellant. Steers,
Edwin Attorney General, K. David S. Wed- ding, Deputy Attorney General, appellee. for appeal has taken from judgment denying the for appellant of sought writ error coram nobis wherein to grand larceny set aside for his conviction entered some years previously. five
Appellant’s principal contention is that he was represented by by heretofore was allowed .and guilty plea larceny such counsel to enter a of when undisputed facts showed he could not have been guilty larceny only guilty but could have been conspiracy to commit a for- gery, incompetent allowing and that his counsel was charge plea him enter a a could not be guilty of.
Appellant’s appeal on for fail two reasons. although It from uncontradicted is record appellant Reformatory committed Indiana was 23, grand larceny April on conviction 1962, April 30, which was
1957, he did not until stated, pe file later as heretofore five long or If court. a nobis in the lower tition for coram delay occurs before unusual (now present rules under our
writ of error coram trial) petitioner should new belated motion reasonable excuse such set forth first stating the cause and how substance cause, and by previously been discovered diligence. Barker v. State of due the exercise Casey ex rel. 9,13; 267, 274, 191 N. 911, Murray (1952), 231 Ind. 2-40 of this Court. Rule also: See case, briefs, appellant in the As after wittingly *3 he run before year had of limitations statute petition he that coram nobis his conspiracy charged com been with should have forgery rather lar than mit a filing delayed ceny. offered no the He has reason con petition and we therefore for the writ raising question the tardiness in sider his extréme that period conviction and con of five after his ruling denying finement warranted the the writ. appears upon that the evidence coram
It further the hearing conflicting upon attempted the issue nobis alleged by appellant as
to be raised to the in original competence counsel, of his and as this may weigh appeal, hot Court such evidence on argument appellant’s that evidence in the established competence of counsel is here untenable.
Judgment affirmed.
Achor, Myers, JJ., and Jackson and
On Appellant petition has filed re- hearing contending opinion erred in Court’s follow- ing its recent in Barker decision v. State long holding Ind. if and or unusual occurs coram before the of a petitioner petition, give nobis the should delay stating reasonable excuse the how cause was first cause, been discov- previously by diligence. ered due exercise opinion In point- our earlier we further appellant, wittingly ed out that year had run statute limitations before setting up he filed coram he charged should have been than with other offenses grand larceny, con- the offense with which stands Appellant any victed. has failed to refute in manner these opinion, facts which we in our earlier as stated ruling denying warranted lower writ. court’s Appellant State, Barker has asked us to overrule supra, but as a well that was considered case and was judgment upon legal principles, in our based correct we cannot do so. appoint addi also asked that we an
tional him for re
hearing although
public
repre
defender has
appeal. However,
sented him on this
it
not the
*4
law
entitled to be furnished counsel at
one
expense
may nilly-willy
compel
of the state
discharge
competent
courts
and conscientious
duly
legal
appointed
provide
ser
him with
vices,
right
designate
or that he
employed
re
him. See: In
who shall be so
Lee, 1964,
Wilder v.
(1963)
2d 395.
Fla.
So.
rehearing
Appellant’s petition for
is denied
and for
of time
motion for additional counsel
extension
to file additional
is overruled.
Achor, JJ.,
Jackson, Myers, and
Arterburn, C.
Reported in