95 N.E.2d 760 | Ohio | 1950
Lead Opinion
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed on authority of In re Burson,
Judgment affirmed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., MATTHIAS, HART, ZIMMERMAN and FAUGHT, JJ., concur.
Concurrence Opinion
The dissenting opinion of Judge Stewart in In re Burson,
If the rights which petitioner now asserts as grounds for collateral attack on his convictions had been promptly asserted, even though the time had elapsed within which an effective appeal could have been made, relief might well be granted petitioner in view of the facts found by the Court of Appeals.
However, in one instance a period of over 19 years and in the other a period of over 15 years have elapsed since those convictions. *280
If petitioner is released in these proceedings, such release will be on grounds having no relation to the question as to whether he was guilty or not guilty of the two crimes of which he was convicted. That being so, the interests of the public would clearly require retrials to determine whether he was or was not guilty of either or both of the two crimes for which he was indicted.
The lapse of time since those convictions 15 and 19 years ago has been such as to make it unlikely that the witnesses, who could have testified for the state, can now be located or will, if located, remember with any degree of accuracy the facts about which they would be required to testify. Under such circumstances, and in the absence of special or unusual facts accounting for or excusing such lapse of time, the interests of justice require a holding that petitioner's failure to take prompter action bars his assertion of the alleged rights, which he once may have have had, to collaterally attack these convictions. See In re Tremper,
STEWART, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion. *281