Case Name: Kenneth Frances, also known as Kenneth Francis v. State of Indiana
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1974-01-18
Citations: 261 Ind. 461
Docket Number: No. 372S32
Parties: Kenneth Frances, also known as Kenneth Francis v. State of Indiana.
Judges: Arterburn, C.J., DeBruler, Givan and Prentice, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 261
Pages: 461–462

Head Matter:
Kenneth Frances, also known as Kenneth Francis v. State of Indiana.
[No. 372S32.
Filed January 18, 1974.]
Melville E. Watson, of Greenfield, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General, Wesley T. Wilson, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

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.