Court Opinion

ID: 9740010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:25:34.629918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:15.365416
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
Landis, J.
Appellant has filed petition for rehearing contending this Court’s opinion erred in following its recent decision in Barker v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 267, 191 N. E. 2d 9, and in holding that if a long or unusual delay occurs before the filing of a coram nobis petition, the petitioner should give a valid and reasonable excuse for the delay stating when and how the cause was first discovered, the facts constituting the cause, and why the cause could not have been discovered previously by the exercise of due diligence.
In our earlier opinion in this case we further pointed out that appellant, wittingly or unwittingly, waited until the five year statute of limitations had run before he filed his coram nobis petition setting up that he should have been charged with other offenses than grand larceny, the offense with which he stands convicted. Appellant has failed to refute in any manner these facts which as we stated in our earlier opinion, warranted the lower court’s ruling denying the writ. Appellant has asked us to overrule Barker v. State, supra, but as that was a well considered case and was in our judgment based upon correct legal principles, we cannot do so.
Appellant has also asked that we appoint an additional attorney to represent him on his petition for rehearing although the public defender has represented him on this appeal. However, it is not the law that one entitled to be furnished counsel at the expense of the state may nilly-willy compel the courts to discharge competent and conscientious counsel duly appointed to provide him with legal services, or that he has the right to designate the attorney *201who shall be so employed to represent him. See: In re Lee, 1964, 246 Ind. 7, 201 N. E. 2d 696; Wilder v. State (1963) Fla. 156 So. 2d 395.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied and his motion for additional counsel and for extension of time to file additional petition for rehearing is overruled.
Arterburn, C. J., and Jackson, Myers, and Achor, JJ., concur.
Note. — Reported in 202 N. E. 2d 165. Rehearing denied in 204 N. E. 2d 218.