Delayed COA appeal declared moot

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal by an election board and political candidates who challenged a candidate's ability to run as an Independent because the candidate had already lost in the election when the appeal finally made it before the appellate court.

The appeal, Lake County Board of Elections and Registrations, Myrna Maldonado, Richard Medina, and Juda Parks v. Anthony Copeland, No. 45A04-0710-CV-560, came before the Court of Appeals after the November 2007 election because of an error in the clerk's office, which rendered the appeal moot.

Incumbent Anthony Copeland wanted to run as an Independent for an at-large seat on East Chicago's Common Council. He was originally elected to that seat in 2003 as a Democrat and at the time of filing his paperwork to run as an Independent, he was still the chairman of the East Chicago Democratic Committee.

Myrna Maldonado, Richard Medina, and Juda Parks (challengers) were also running for council seats and opposed Copeland's running as an Independent. They alleged under Indiana law, Copeland was not allowed to run as an Independent while still affiliated with the Democratic Party.

The Election Board voted to remove Copeland's name from the Nov. 6, 2007, ballot. An emergency hearing was set in September 2007, in which the trial court ruled there was no evidence presented by the challengers that would disqualify Copeland from running as an Independent. The court granted a preliminary injunction, ordering the Election Board to reinstate Copeland as a candidate. The challengers tried to have the Indiana Supreme Court accept the case, but the court denied the appeal.

The Court of Appeals in mid-October 2007 issued an order granting the challengers' motion to consolidate and motion to expedite. Their brief was due Oct. 18, 2007; Copeland's was due Oct. 24, 2007.

For reasons unknown to the court, the case wasn't transmitted to the appellate court until January 2008, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik. The clerk of the courts online docket shows both sets of briefs were submitted either before or on their due dates; however, the appellant brief was filestamped Oct. 24, 2007, and Copeland's brief didn't initially have a stamp. It was later back-filestamped to Oct. 24, 2007.

Because of error on the part of both parties in filing, the clerk's office could not filestamp the briefs until they were complete, wrote Supreme Court Administrator and Clerk of the Appellate Courts and Tax Courts Kevin Smith in an e-mail to Indiana Lawyer. The challengers submitted the brief without a copy of the appealed judgment; they fixed the defect on Oct. 24, 2007, which is when it was filestamped. Copeland left out a copy of a page of his brief and failed to attach a proper certificate of service to show he served the challengers with the missing page, so his appeal was not filed.

"The following day, (Copeland) tendered an additional nine copies of the page missing from his brief, along with an updated certificate of service; however, the updated certificate of service was also insufficient to show that he had served the Appellants with the missing page. Accordingly, again his brief was not filed. At that point, we should have discussed with the Court of Appeals what it wanted for us to do. We failed to do so, however, and that was our fault," wrote Smith.

The reason the case continued to be delayed was human error and a flaw in the case management's calendaring, so the case was not transmitted to the Court of Appeals as it should have been, according to Smith. Copeland's brief was not filestamped with the date Oct. 24, 2007, until staff from the writing judge's chambers in January 2008 inquired on the case; his brief remained incomplete at that time.

"Thereafter, we investigated the causes that led to our oversight and uncovered the holes in our various systems that created the ability for this to happen. We immediately took steps to plug those holes," Smith wrote.

Smith wrote that even though those holes are now plugged, if a case does fall through an unforeseen crack in the system, counsel is encouraged to contact the clerk, deputy clerk, or Administration Office of the Court to find out if the case has been transmitted.

Because the case, which was supposed to be expedited, didn't appear before the appellate court until after the election, the appeal is rendered moot, wrote Judge Vaidik. Copeland was on the ballot and lost the election. Also, the appellate court chose to not rule on the case because even if the issues in the appeal are of great public importance, they are unlikely to recur.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.