ILNews

COA dismisses appeal as untimely under T.R. 53.3(A)

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed a man’s appeal from the denial of his motion to correct error because he didn’t file his notice within 30 days of when the motion was deemed denied, which happened before the trial court actually ruled on the motion.

The trial court found Robert Bergstrom committed speeding. He challenged the finding and filed what the trial court construed as a motion to correct error Dec. 8, 2008. On June 7, 2009, the trial court ordered his counsel to file a “formal” motion to correct error within 30 days, which the attorney did. A hearing was held Nov. 5, 2009, but the trial court didn’t take any action on his motion until Feb. 5, 2010 – 92 days after the hearing.

Bergstrom filed his notice of appeal March 4, 2010, which is within 30 days of the trial court order, but his notice is untimely because that’s not the date it was deemed denied under Indiana Trial Rule 53.3(A), wrote Judge Paul Mathias in Robert C. Bergstrom, Jr. v. State of Indiana, No. 92A05-1003-IF-170. T.R. 53.3(A) says if a trial court fails to rule on a motion to correct error within 30 days after it was heard, the pending motion shall be deemed denied.

Bergstrom should have appealed by Dec. 7, 2009. Since he did not, his appeal was dismissed as untimely.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT