Summary
In State ex rel. Blanton v. Smith (1949), 229 Ind. 1, 86 N.E.2d 84, our Supreme Court said that a motion for new trial is not contemplated in coram nobis proceedings.
Summary of this case from Apple v. AppleOpinion
No. O-13.
Filed May 25, 1949.
1. CRIMINAL LAW — Appeal — Record — Poor Person — Not Entitled to Transcript at Public Expense. — A poor person is not entitled to a transcript of the record in a coram nobis proceeding at public expense for the purpose of perfecting an appeal. p. 2.
2. CRIMINAL LAW — Writ of Error Coram Nobis — Motion for New Trial — Not Contemplated in Coram Nobis Proceedings. — In an original action to mandate respondent judge to furnish a transcript of a coram nobis proceeding at public expense or, if that relief should be denied, to mandate the trial court to vacate its order denying the writ and grant relator's petition for a rehearing, the petition for a rehearing amounted to a motion for a new trial, which is not contemplated in coram nobis proceedings, and it also sought to raise errors which could only be raised on appeal; therefore relief by mandamus would be denied. Rules of the Supreme Court, 2-40. p. 2.
Original action by the State of Indiana on the relation of Chester R. Blanton against Richard Smith, as Special Judge of the Marion Criminal Court, Division One, for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent to furnish relator with a transcript of a coram nobis proceeding at public expense and for other relief.
Petition denied.
Chester R. Blanton, pro se.
This is an original action wherein the relator is asking an order mandating the trial court to furnish him with a transcript of the record of a certain proceedings in which his petition for a writ of error coram nobis was denied. He alleges that he is a poor person without means of paying for a record which he wishes to use in perfecting an appeal from the judgment of the respondent court denying his petition. Said petition also asks that in case this court does not grant this request, that the respondent court be ordered and mandated to vacate its order denying the writ, and grant his petition for a rehearing and his petition supplemental thereto, which he was allowed to file and which was denied.
The relator is not entitled to a transcript of the record in this case at public expense. State ex rel. v. Criminal Court of Lake County (1942), 220 Ind. 4, 40 N.E.2d 971. See 1. also State ex rel. Cutsinger v. Spencer, Judge (1941), 219 Ind. 148, 41 N.E.2d 601.
The petition for rehearing and the petition supplemental thereto really amount to a motion for a new trial which is not contemplated in coram nobis proceedings. See Rule 2-40, 2. Rules of the Indiana Supreme Court, 1946 Revision. We have examined these petitions, however, and find the causes set out therein as alleged errors could only be raised, if at all, on appeal.
Relator's petition is hereby denied.
NOTE. — Reported in 86 N.E.2d 84.