Court Opinion

ID: 9764383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:20:10.992969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:56.159917
License: Public Domain

DALTON, Judge
(dissenting).
I concur in the dissenting opinion of STORCKMAN, J., and wish to add one further point.
While the case was set for trial on March 30, 1960, and on that date a notation appears on the record that defendant failed to appear, nevertheless on the same date the record shows that a motion to dismiss was *861permitted to be filed and apparently this was done without objection, since no protest appears in the record. Arguments were heard and the motion was taken under advisement.
The offense attempted to be stated in the information was only a misdemeanor and, since the motion to dismiss was permitted to be filed, argued, and taken under advisement by the court, the cause was not reached for trial. Defendant’s failure, if any, to personally appear was not raised by the State or by the court as a bar to any further proceedings in the cause, after the entry was made that defendant failed to appear. Even if defendant was not personally present he was personally represented by counsel and proceedings were permitted to be handled in exactly the same manner as if the defendant were personally present. On this record the State waived defendant’s failure to personally appear.
Further, it seems that the notation of defendant’s failure to appear and the record entries as to the filing, hearing, and submission of a motion on defendant’s behalf to dismiss the information were clearly inconsistent, if not actually conflicting, entries. On March 30, 1960, the defendant was not called on his bond nor was any request then made for the forfeiture of his bond nor were proceedings for forfeiture entered prior to further proceedings in the cause and we think these facts clearly show that defendant’s failure to personally appear was waived by the State.
The motion for the forfeiture of defendant’s bond was not filed until March 31, 1960, which was after the motion to dismiss was taken under advisement. In other words, the motion to forfeit the bond was filed after defendant’s failure to appear had been waived by the State and his motion to dismiss had been filed and heard.
As shown by the record, both the motion to dismiss and the motion for bond forfeiture were subsequently continued until April 6, 1960, when further inconsistent entries were made, to wit, the bond forfeiture was attempted to be ordered and the information dismissed and defendant discharged.
I would reverse the judgment.