Opinion
No. 0-779.
Filed October 19, 1966.
1. MANDATE AND PROHIBITION — Timely Appeal. — Writ of mandate may only be issued by Supreme Court when requested within period for timely appeal. p. 647.
2. MANDATE AND PROHIBITION — Form of Writ — Failure of Requirements. — Petition for writ of mandate filed pro se, not in proper form, must be denied. Rule 2-35 of Supreme Court. p. 647.
3. MANDATE AND PROHIBITION — Belated Appeal — Supreme Court Rules. — Petition for writ of mandate may be considered as belated appeal under Rule 2-40A of Supreme Court. p. 647.
4. MANDATE AND PROHIBITION — Omission of Material Elements — Frivolous Appeals. — Petition for writ of mandate omitting reasons why verdict is contrary to law and omitting all new evidence fails in all regards and amounts to a frivolous appeal. p. 647.
Petitioner, Manuel V. Pittman, brings original action for writ of mandate.
Petitions Dismissed.
Manuel V. Pittman, pro se.
This court has received 10 separate and distinct petitions from this petitioner since July 3, 1964. The last two received are a "Writ of Mandamus, Prohibition," and a "Petition, pro se."
None of the petitions received state any concrete proposition on which a belated appeal under Rule 2-40A or a writ of mandate under Rule 2-35 could be issued. The petitioner merely alleges that he is being wrongfully detained in the Indiana Reformatory but states no grounds whatsoever upon which his conclusion can be based.
It is clear under Indiana law that a writ of mandate may only be issued by the Supreme Court when the appeal is requested within the period for timely appeal. Nowhere in these 1. petitions is it alleged such appeal was requested. State ex rel. Grecco v. Allen Cir. Ct. et al. (1958), 238 Ind. 571, 153 N.E.2d 914.
A petition for writ of mandate filed pro se which contains no form of a writ which he deems himself entitled to, fails to meet the requirements of Rule 2-35 and must be denied. State 2. v. Parsons (1955), 234 Ind. 708, 129 N.E.2d 60.
These petitions may be viewed in the light of a belated appeal under Rule 2-40A. The petitioner alleges that the verdict is contrary to law, but petitioner states no reasons upon 3, 4. which he based this conclusion. Petitioner does not bring forth new evidence. This petition therefore fails in all regards. Frivolous appeals are not permitted. Willoughby v. State (1961), 242 Ind. 183, 167 N.E.2d 881.
Petitions dismissed.
Achor, J., not participating.
NOTE. — Reported in 220 N.E.2d 611.