Gray v. State

145 N.E.2d 896, 237 Ind. 701, 1957 Ind. LEXIS 313
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided November 26, 1957·No. No. 0-498·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam

Petitioner herein has attempted pro se to perfect an appeal to this court under Rule 2-40. The papers which he has filed contain no proper assignment of error, nor do they contain any of the record necessary to present the questions which [702] petitioner is apparently attempting to raise, nor does it in any manner comply with the provisions of Rule 2-40.

The petition is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court under Rule 2-40, and for this reason it should be dismissed. Davis v. Pelley (1952), 230 Ind. 248, 251, 102 N. E. 2d 910; Bolden v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 708, 130 N. E. 2d 52.

Petition dismissed.

Note. — Reported in 145 N. E. 2d 896.

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

Gray v. State, 145 N.E.2d 896, 237 Ind. 701, 1957 Ind. LEXIS 313 (Ind. 1957).

145 N.E.2d 896 (Gray v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State ex rel. Griffith v. Nichols
145 N.E.2d 896 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1957)