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.


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. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues