Opinion ID: 2180953
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Motion for Return of Money

Text: We include in this decision our resolution of the defendant's appeal in a related post-trial proceeding. Following the conclusion of the defendant's trial on charges of forgery and theft, he filed a Petition For Court To Order Return of Property, alleging that on February 17, 1984, the sum of $1500.00 was seized as evidence in the case by the Martinsville Police Department, [2] and that the State is wrongfully depriving the defendant of his rightful possession of said property. Following the filing of the petition, the trial court scheduled a hearing, notifying both the defendant and his stand-by counsel. The State appeared at the hearing by the Morgan County Prosecuting Attorney as did the defendant by his stand-by counsel. Upon learning that the trial court had not sua sponte ordered that the defendant be transported from the State Reformatory for the hearing, the defendant's stand-by counsel objected to the defendant's absence and informed the court that he, as stand-by counsel, was not prepared to call any witnesses or make any arguments in support of the petition. The defendant's counsel did not request a continuance. No evidence was presented, and the petition was overruled. Upon the trial court's denial of the subsequent motion to correct errors, the defendant initiated an appeal to the Court of Appeals. Finding that the appeal raises a matter collateral to the principal appeal herein, we ordered the matter transferred and consolidated it with the present appeal. The defendant claims error in two issues: (1) conducting a hearing in the defendant's absence, and (2) denial of petition for return of property. Noting that the record contains no application from the defendant to personally attend the hearing, the state argues that there can be no abuse of discretion by the trial court in failing to order his transportation. We agree, particularly when considering the failure of defense counsel to seek a continuance so that evidence could be presented. Under the circumstances, we decline to find error in the denial of the defendant's petition for return of property.