Case Name: Walter K. Nelson v. State of Indiana
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1973-05-14
Citations: 260 Ind. 366
Docket Number: No. 668S101
Parties: Walter K. Nelson v. State of Indiana.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 260
Pages: 366–367

Head Matter:
Walter K. Nelson v. State of Indiana.
[No. 668S101.
Filed May 14, 1973.]
Robert F. Craven, Craven & Milan, of Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General, R. Michael Bruney, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

Opinion:
Arterburn, C.J.
Appellant was convicted of burglary and theft in separate causes in the Washington Circuit Court, Cause No. 5067 and Cause No. 5068 were consolidated for trial, on November 10, 1967. A praecipe was filed with the Clerk of that Court on March 21, 1968, for a transcript for the purpose of an appeal. From time to time thereafter appellant was granted extensions of time for the purpose of securing a transcript of the evidence and a record for appeal. These were based upon the delay of the court reporter and finally upon a showing that "a malfunction of the recording equipment during the course of the trial" resulted in a failure to record all the evidence properly. The last extension of time was granted to June 24, 1970. In the meantime, appellant has been at liberty under a $20,000 bond pending the outcome of this appeal.
Appellant has filed what is entitled "Motion for a Belated Motion for a New Trial" and states that his only remedy can be a post conviction remedy or that we direct a new trial be granted.
It is our opinion that whether or not appellant is entitled to a new trial should be the subject matter of a post conviction remedy and should not be determined by this Court granting a new trial without further showing of error.
This appeal, therefore, upon the admission of the appellant that he can not procure a full and complete record of the evidence for this appeal, is dismissed and appellant is authorized to proceed through a post conviction remedy without prejudice as to time for such relief as appellant may be entitled.
Note.—Reported in 295 N. E. 2d 811.