Court Opinion

ID: 9859979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:06:14.264017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:14:35.134725
License: Public Domain

PRENTICE, Justice,
concurring in result.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. However, I do not agree that we misconstrued State ex rel. Hasch v. Johnson Circuit Court, (1955) 234 Ind. 429, 127 N.E.2d 600 in State ex rel. Back v. Starke Circuit Court, (1979) 271 Ind. 82, 390 N.E.2d 643.
The statement from Hasch was dicta, the temporary writ having been dissolved because the issue had not been properly presented in the trial court. The statement 1 was also incorrect, although a caveat followed and suggested that an “exception might be as to the intervening period between the dismissal and refiling of the charge — ” (Emphasis added). Obviously such exception must apply. The issue, as stated in the majority opinion is “how long has the defendant been held on recognizance or otherwise to answer a criminal charge.” The date of the initial filing is, therefore, germane only to the determination of the period for which he was held under the first filing. Saying that if the charge is refiled, “it must be regarded as if there had been no dismissal of the first” is simply a grossly erroneous statement, both in Hasch (Supra) and in Back (Supra).
It should also be noted that Back (Supra) was, nevertheless, correctly determined, he having been held, in the aggregate, upon both charges for a period in excess of that allowed by the rule.

. "The obvious purpose and character of the statute (§ 9-1403) upon which the motion to dismiss is based requires that in event the identical charge is refiled, it must be regarded as if there had been no dismissal of the first affidavit, or as if the second affidavit had been filed on the date of the first.” 234 Ind. at 435, 127 N.E.2d at 602-603.