Frances v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Frances v. State

305 N.E.2d 883, 261 Ind. 461, 1974 Ind. LEXIS 353

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 18, 1974

Docket372S32

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 305 N.E.2d 883 (Frances v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frances v. State, 305 N.E.2d 883, 261 Ind. 461, 1974 Ind. LEXIS 353 (Ind. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Hunter, J.

This is a direct appeal from a first degree murder conviction. Appellant has raised numerous specifications of error in the motion to correct errors filed in the trial court. However, the appellant’s brief is defective to the degree that, in substance, we have no appeal before us at all. In particular, we have neither cogent argument nor citation of authority before this Court. Meager pro forma compliance with rules of appellate practice represents less than desired performance from appellate counsel. Adams v. State (1973), 261 Ind. 191, 301 N. E. 2d 368. “Our appellate rules . . . outline in general from the requirements for a legally cognizable argument. Adherence to this standard is not left open to the option of an appellate attorney.” Dortch v. Lugar (1971), 255 Ind. 545, 588, 266 N. E. 2d 25, 51.

Accordingly, the Court orders the attorneys for appellant to re-brief this cause and to do so in compliance with the Rules of this Court. Counsel are given thirty days from the receipt of this opinion in which to accomplish their re-briefing. The Attorney General is given thirty days from the date of filing appellant’s amended brief within which to file an answer brief.

The Clerk is ordered to mail copies of this opinion to each of the attorneys of record by certified mail with return receipt requested. The date of such return is to be used in calculating the time periods ordered herein.

Arterburn, C.J., DeBruler, Givan and Prentice, JJ., concur.

Note. — Reported in 305 N. E. 2d 883.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hunter, J.

This is a direct appeal from a first degree murder conviction. Appellant has raised numerous specifications of error in the motion to correct errors filed in the trial court. However, the appellant’s brief is defective to the degree that, in substance, we have no appeal before us at all. In particular, we have neither cogent argument nor citation of authority before this Court. Meager pro forma compliance with rules of appellate practice represents less than desired performance from appellate counsel. Adams v. State (1973), 261 Ind. 191, 301 N. E. 2d 368. “Our appellate rules . . . outline in general from the requirements for a legally cognizable argument. Adherence to this standard is not left open to the option of an appellate attorney.” Dortch v. Lugar (1971), 255 Ind. 545, 588, 266 N. E. 2d 25, 51.

Accordingly, the Court orders the attorneys for appellant to re-brief this cause and to do so in compliance with the Rules of this Court. Counsel are given thirty days from the receipt of this opinion in which to accomplish their re-briefing. The Attorney General is given thirty days from the date of filing appellant’s amended brief within which to file an answer brief.

The Clerk is ordered to mail copies of this opinion to each of the attorneys of record by certified mail with return receipt requested. The date of such return is to be used in calculating the time periods ordered herein.

Arterburn, C.J., DeBruler, Givan and Prentice, JJ., concur.

Note. — Reported in 305 N. E. 2d 883.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 N.E.2d 883, 261 Ind. 461, 1974 Ind. LEXIS 353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frances-v-state-ind-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack