ILNews

COA footnotes: more past delays found

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Examples are still surfacing about how files had been delayed in getting transmitted to the Indiana Court of Appeals, although the Appellate Clerk's office has been backlog-free for about a month and these instances only highlight what had happened in the past.

Two opinions in the past week show cases that were not transmitted from the clerk's office for eight months and almost two years, respectively. Both included footnotes explaining the situation, recent reforms, and advice to counsel about keeping tabs on case statutes.

"We have recently become aware of some difficulties in receiving the prompt transmission of fully-briefed appeals to our court," says a footnote in today's decision Karen R. Berry Williams v. State of Indiana, No. 73A01-0511-CR-513, and the March 20 Not for Publication ruling on Jerry A. Gore v. State of Indiana, No. 18A05-0610-CR-587.

Williams was fully briefed March 26, 2006, but not transferred to the appellate court until Feb. 18, 2008; Gore was briefed June 21, 2007, and transferred Feb. 26, 2008, the footnotes say. At least four opinions dating to late last year have cited similar issues.

The footnotes also mention Lake County Board of Elections and Registration, et al. v. Anthony Copeland, No. 45A04-0710-CV-560, issued on Feb. 27, 2008, and Gilbert v. State of Indiana, 874 N.E.2d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), released in October 2007.

Chief Judge John Baker, who authored both opinions and inserted the footnotes, told Indiana Lawyer earlier this week that he was proud of how the clerk's office had addressed and resolved the issues. Most credit should be given to Clerk Kevin Smith, the judge said, because he has been putting measures in place to solve the issues since the fall.

"The Clerk of the Court has assured us that a new system and periodic inventory review program have been implemented to minimize future delays," today's footnote in Williams says.

Dealing with a backlog that's been evident for months, Smith started making changes in late 2007 after becoming concerned with the ability to keep up with growing caseloads and intake workloads. The office implemented staff and organizational changes in January that involved hiring new employees, shuffling existing staff, and creating an extra morning shift to process paperwork more quickly. He reported in late February that his office had purged the backlog and no filing was more than 24 hours old from its arrival date, and everything is docketed within a day.

Chief Judge Baker said attorneys can check the clerk's online docket to confirm that the case has, in fact, been transmitted to the court after being fully briefed.

Smith also encourages attorneys to contact his office directly if they have any concerns or do not see a mailed submission posted on the online docket within five business days. He also suggests that appellate attorneys give his office a heads up about a time-sensitive motion or filing they plan to make, as well as not waiting until the last minute. The Appellate Clerk's office can be reached directly at (317) 232-1930 or by sending an e-mail via the Indiana Judiciary's Web site.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT