From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harts v. State

Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District
Apr 10, 1986
490 N.E.2d 1158 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986)

Opinion

No. 3-1184A315PS.

April 10, 1986.

Appeal from the County Court, Whitley County, Pat McNagny, J.

Earl D. Harts, pro se.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Gary Damon Secrest, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-appellee.


Earl Harts, pro se, brings this appeal from a conviction for refusal to submit to a chemical test for intoxication. See IC 9-4-4.5-3.

The transcript is not bound as required by Indiana Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 7.1.

Appellant's brief makes no apparent effort to comply with the appellate rules for briefing. AP 8.2, 8.3. It consists of one copy, without cover. In the portion designated "Argument," appellant merely asserts that he is unable to submit a proper argument because of the elapsed time since the trial.

The bulk of Harts' brief appears under the headings "Statement of the Case" and "Summary and Facts." These pages are full of calumny and scandalous assertions. Such a document has no place in a court of law. Barnard v. Kruzan (1943), 221 Ind. 208, 46 N.E.2d 238.

Appellant's brief is accordingly hereby struck from the files of this court and this appeal is dismissed.

STATON, P.J., and HOFFMAN, J. concur.


Summaries of

Harts v. State

Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District
Apr 10, 1986
490 N.E.2d 1158 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986)
Case details for

Harts v. State

Case Details

Full title:EARL D. HARTS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, v. STATE OF INDIANA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

Court:Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District

Date published: Apr 10, 1986

Citations

490 N.E.2d 1158 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986)

Citing Cases

Gentry v. State

We dismiss because Gentry has failed to comply with our rules of appellate procedure. Where an appellant…