Case Name: Maurice Evan SCRUGGS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1993-03-04
Citations: 609 N.E.2d 1148
Docket Number: No. 49A02-9204-CR-192
Parties: Maurice Evan SCRUGGS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
Judges: SULLIVAN, J., concurs.
Reporter: North Eastern Reporter 2d
Volume: 609
Pages: 1148–1152

Head Matter:
Maurice Evan SCRUGGS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
No. 49A02-9204-CR-192.
Court of Appeals of Indiana, Second District.
March 4, 1993.
Richard D. Gilroy, Indianapolis, for appellant-defendant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Geoff Davis, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee-plaintiff.

Opinion:
SHIELDS, Judge.
Maurice Evan Scruggs attempts to appeal his conviction for burglary, a class B felony. However, he candidly and accurately advises this court of an impediment to his appeal-the lack of an appealable judgment.
The record reveals that Sceruggs's sentencing was conducted by a person other than a duly qualified judge of the Marion Superior Court, and yet fails to contain any authority for this person to act as a judicial officer. The authority upon which Senior Judge Buchanan relies is not such authority. The record in this cause contains only the Chronological Case Summary (CCS). The CCS is maintained by the Clerk of the Circuit Court and, by supreme court rule, contains a sequential record of the judicial events in each proceeding including the date of the event and a brief summary of any documents, orders, rulings, or judgments filed or entered in the case. Ind.Trial Rule 77(B). Thus, the CCS is an index to judicial events and, while it is an official record, the entries therein are neither judicial events nor judicial entries as were, for example, the formerly-used minute entries to which Senior Judge Buchanan refers.
The documents, orders, rulings, and judgments themselves are in the Record of Judgments and Orders. Ind.Trial Rule T7(D) describes the order book and, in part, specifically provides that it shall contain "the certification of the election of the regular judge of the court, any order appointing a Special Judge, Judge Pro Tempore, or Temporary Judge, [and] the oath and acceptance of any judge serving in the court." The praecipe in this case requested the record of proceedings and transcript of the pre-trial legal hearings, the evidence of the trial, and the sentencing. The request for the record of proceedings, by definition of that term in Ind.Appellate Rule 7.2(A), includes a request for a copy of the prae-cipe, the motion to correct error or assignment of error, if used, copies of all papers filed or offered to be filed, and a copy of the order book entries. Inasmuch as order book entries were requested, and yet the record is devoid of any order book entries pertaining to the authority of the person who presided at Scruggs's sentencing, we must assume that no such entries exist.
Non-judicial entries, and in particular, non-judicial entries that are merely prefatory, do not constitute an improper or irregular appointment of a judge such that the person presiding at the judicial event can be considered as a de facto judicial officer. An improper or irregular appointment, such as that in Powell v. State (1982), Ind., 440 N.E.2d 1114, requires some action by the duly qualified judge that falls short of complying with proper procedures in order for the waiver doctrine to apply. A party cannot waive that which has not occurred-in this case, empowering the person conducting the sentencing to act as a judicial officer.
The fallacy of relying upon the CCS is well-illustrated by the CCS in this case. As an example, the CCS entry for the date of Seruggs's sentencing appears as follows:
DATE: 01/29/92 TIME: 09:00 EVENT: SENTENCING
CASE EVENT COURT: GOZ
CASE EVENT DISPOSITION: CASE EVENT COMPLETE
JUDGE: 27674 FOGLE ANDREW J TYPE: Pro Tem
PROSECUTOR: B2472 BLOWERS PHILIP
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: 02284 TRIVEDI CANDACE W
LAST UPDATER: 835182 BOBERSCHMIDT ANDREW
Court Reporter: LESSIE CRAWLEY.
SENTENCING HEARING MINUTES 01/29/92
Pro Tem
Defendant by counsel CANDACE TRIVEDL
State of Indiana by PHIL BLOWERS.
Judgment of conviction entered on counts(s) 1,2
Court conducts Sentencing hearing and, after considering the Pregsentence Investigation report and all evidence presented, sentences the Defendant as follows:
As to Count 001, Sentence imposed 12 y: Executed 48380 D; Suspended 0 Y.
As to Count 002, Sentence imposed 545 D; Executed 545 D; Suspended 0 D.
All counts to run concurrently with one another.
Defendant ordered committed to Department of Correction and given 187 days credit time.
Abstract of Judgment issued and filed (HL).
Criminal Court Commitment Order
End of Update Sentencing/Commitment
Court finds aggravating circumstances.
Court advised Defendant and Counsel of rights of appeal.
Court finds Defendant indigent for appeal purposes and refers matter to Marion
County Pauper Appeals Panel.
Defendant does not wish to appeal.
Record at 7.
Thus, prefatory to entering the record of a judicial event as defined by T.R. 77(B), the Marion County Clerk's updater, the computer operator, enters the judge's name, number, and type, the prosecutor's number and name, the defense attorney's number and name, the updater's number and name, and the court reporter's name. Only after those entries does the updater proceed to index and briefly describe the judicial event as required in TR. 77(B).
None of the entries in this case record any attempt whatsoever by the duly qualified judge to empower the person sentencing Scruggs with authority to so act. In particular, there are no "trial court[ ] minute entries" to which Senior Judge Buchanan refers; he is relying merely upon the prefatory entry of an updater for authority that at some unrecorded point in time the person who presided at Seruggs's sentence was a duly qualified judicial officer. The integrity of the system demands more.
Scruggs directs the attention of this court to a further defect. The record reveals that while his trial also was conducted by someone other than a duly qualified judge of the Marion Superior Court, there again is nothing in the record indicating the authority of this individual to serve as a judicial officer. If such authority exists, it should be included in the record in the event a subsequent appeal of Scruggs's conviction occurs.
Appeal dismissed and Seruggs ordered released from custody of the Department of Correction and returned to the custody of the Marion County Sheriff.
SULLIVAN, J., concurs.
BUCHANAN, Senior Judge, dissents, with separate dissenting opinion.
. TR. 77(B) reads:
Chronological Case Summary. For each case, the Clerk of the Circuit Court shall maintain a sequential record of the judicial events in such proceeding. This record shall include the title of the proceeding; the assigned case number; the names, addresses, telephone and attorney numbers of all attorneys involved in the proceeding, or the fact that a party appears pro se with address and telephone number of the party so appearing; and the assessment of fees and charges (Public Receivables). Notation of judicial events shall set forth the date of the event and briefly define any documents, orders, rulings, or judgments filed or entered in the case.
The Chronological Case Summary shall also note the entry of orders, rulings and judgments in the Record of Judgments and Orders, the entry of judgments in the Judgment Docket (IC 33-17-2-3), and file status (pending/decided) under section (G) of this rule. The Chronological Case Summary shall be maintained apart from other records of the court and shall be organized by case number.
. Also, it should be noted that while some of the updater's prefatory entries report that Andrew J. Fogle is a pro tem "type" judge, others record that he is a special judge "type" judge, and others, still later, record the judge as Webster Brewer, the duly qualified judge.