ILNews

COA: Trial judges can't expand timetable on filing appeal notice

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

State trial judges do not have the power to expand the appeal filing timetable outlined by Appellate Rule 9, the Indiana Court of Appeals cautioned today.

In the four-page ruling of Anthony Mark Sewell v. State of Indiana, No. 73A01-1005-CR-194, the three-judge appellate panel dismissed the case after the Indiana Attorney General’s Office filed a cross-appeal requesting dismissal because the appellant’s notice of appeal wasn’t filed in time.

Special Judge Jack Tandy in Shelby Superior Court found Sewell guilty Oct. 19, 2009, of misdemeanor battery and misdemeanor criminal mischief, and on Nov. 17 the trial court received a handwritten letter from Sewell requesting an appeal and notifying the court he “may need” appointed appellate counsel. The trial court appointed an appellate attorney on Dec. 21, and on Jan. 5, 2010, that new attorney filed a notice of appeal. In total, that filing came about 50 days after Sewell’s conviction.

While Sewell is challenging his convictions based on evidence sufficiency, the AG’s Office argued on cross-appeal that Sewell failed to timely file notice of appeal within 30 days of a final judgment as required under Indiana Appellate Rule 9(A)(1). Though Sewell’s handwritten letter met that timetable, it did not comply with the rule requirements that it designate to which court the appeal is sought, direct the clerk to assemble the record or request a transcript, or specify whether this was a final judgment or interlocutory order.

“These significant, substantive deficiencies preclude us from concluding Sewell’s letter to the trial court was sufficient to preserve his right to appeal,” Judge Paul Mathias wrote for the panel. “Moreover, although the trial court purported to grant Sewell additional time to file a notice of appeal, no provision of the appellate rules permits trial courts to expand the time limit prescribed by Appellate Rule 9. Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant Sewell additional time to file his notice of appeal, the Jan. 5 (2010) notice of appeal filed by Sewell’s appellate counsel was untimely.”

While the appellate court noted that Sewell’s conduct may qualify him to file a petition for permission for a belated notice of appeal under Post-Conviction Rule 2, this current appeal is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

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