Court Opinion

ID: 9775694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:07:10.583944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:30.332176
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, concurring. There was no appeal from the appellant’s guilty plea of February 21, 1980. On October 26, 1987, he filed a Rule 37 petition asserting that his guilty plea was involuntary. The matter was properly filed in the trial court. On November 3, 1987, the trial court issued an acknowledgment of the petition and gave the appellant 30 days to amend his petition to show a cognizable cause in the trial court. The appellant then filed an amended petition. The court subsequently conducted a hearing on both the petition and amended petition. He found that the original petition was untimely and that there was no evidence to support the allegation that the judgement was void. I believe the court proceeded in the exact manner intended by Rule 37. Certainly the trial court has jurisdiction to determine whether a cause of action is stated in a Rule 37 petition. The trial court is also vested with jurisdiction to make a determination upon the allegations of voidness. In the present case the trial court acted exactly as it should have. The majority opinion acknowledges this when it states that “ [w] e emphasize that a court always has the power and duty to examine the evidence and determine whether in fact it does have jurisdiction over the matter.” Moreover, the majority opines that once an otherwise untimely petition is tendered, the trial court should exercise its power and determine whether jurisdiction exists. The court initially determined that the petition was untimely. With the consent of the court, the petition was amended. Thereafter, upon a hearing, the court properly determined that the original petition was untimely and that the conviction was not absolutely void. The trial court in this case proceeded in strict observance of Rule 37 and the law.