Case ID: ne2d_462/html/0212-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CONOVER, Presiding Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James T. DOUGHERTY, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
    No. 4-1282 A 362.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana, Fourth District.
    July 28, 1983.
    J.J. Paul, III, James H. Voyles, Jr., Ober, Symmes, Cardwell, Voyles & Zahn, Indianapolis, for appellant.
    Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., John D. Shuman, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
   OPINION ON REHEARING

CONOVER, Presiding Judge.

James T. Dougherty (Dougherty) petitions for rehearing, claiming our opinion on his appeal is erroneous. Dougherty v. State, (1983) Ind.App. 451 N.E.2d 382. However, his petition is insufficient. Like that filed in Mikesell v. Mikesell, (1982) Ind.App., 436 N.E.2d 95, it

... contains no separate assignment of appellate error, rather it discusses in argumentative narrative the reasons they believe our prior decision is erroneous.
By failing to set out separately a concise assignment of appellate error, the appellants/petitioners have failed to comply with the requirements of Ind.Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 11(A).

Id. at 96. Failure to comply with this rule warrants dismissal. Therefore, Dougherty’s petition for rehearing is dismissed.

MILLER and YOUNG, JJ., concur.