Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

172 Ind. App. 205

359 N.E.2d 924

Robison v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided February 16, 1977

Indiana Court of Appeals · decided 1977-02-16

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“a "judgment withheld entry is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Debro v. State, Barlow v. State

“Finding of guilty as charged and judgment is now by the court withheld.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Debro v. State

Relies on Warner v. State · Smith v. State · 171 Ind. App. 476 - Taylor v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1977-02-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently March 2003

3 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

801977198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Garrard, J.

¶1 The appellant was charged with theft and was tried by the court. At the conclusion of the trial the court made the following entry,

“Finding of guilty as charged and judgment is now by the court withheld.”

¶2 We are aware of the practice of some trial courts in utilizing this form of entry in certain cases. However, it is not authorized by statute or rule. See, e.g., Indiana Rules of Procedure, Criminal Rule 11; IC 1971, 35-8-1 (A) -1, 2.

¶3 A defendant may, if he chooses, compel the court to discharge its duty to promptly pronounce judgment and sentence. Taylor v. State (1976), 171 Ind. App. 476, 358 N.E.2d 167.

¶4 Where the court deliberately postpones indefinitely the pronouncement of judgment and sentence, the court loses jurisdiction to sentence and upon application the defendant should be discharged. Warner v. State (1924), 194 Ind. 426, 143 N.E. 288; Smith v. State (1919), 188 Ind. 64, 121 N.E. 829; Taylor, supra.

¶5 However, a “judgment withheld” entry is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order. AP. 4(B).

¶6 *207 It is therefore not appealable. Clanton v. State (1974), 159 Ind. App. 603, 308 N.E.2d 726; Spall v. State (1973), 156 Ind. App. 189, 295 N.E.2d 852.

¶7 Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

¶8 Staton, P.J. and Hoffman, J., concurs.

¶9 Note. — Reported at 359 N.E.2d 924.

/172/indapp/205 · .json · Public domain