Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Crank v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided January 29, 1987No. 79A02-8603-PC-92Published

1ConcurrenceSullivan, Judge

I agree that the cause must be remanded for correction of the sentences. I also agree that the trial court did not err in denying Crank’s Petition for Post Conviction Relief.

*1361With regard to the merits of the Post Conviction Petition, the trial court was entitled to conclude from the evidence that Crank voluntarily absented himself from the jurisdiction knowing the date upon which he was to appear for trial. I therefore agree that it was not error to conduct the trial in his absence.

I do not, however, agree that, as stated by the majority, a defendant’s absence may be held to be voluntary…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Gilbert v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1979
  2. Bullock v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Hudson v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1984
  4. Ramos v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Prater v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1984

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API