ILNews

'Prison mailbox rule' applies to direct appeals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The "prison mailbox rule," which the Indiana Court of Appeals had previously determined applies in post-conviction proceedings, also is applicable in direct appeals, the appellate court decided today.

In Robert E. Lawrence II v. State of Indiana, No. 29A02-0906-CR-580, the Court of Appeals ruled the trial court erred when it denied Robert Lawrence II permission to file a belated notice of appeal because his appeal was timely filed.

The trial court originally sentenced Lawrence Dec. 10, 2008, to 1,095 days in the Indiana Department of Correction, with all but one year suspended. The trial court amended the sentence two days later, saying it should be all but 703 days were suspended.

While incarcerated, Lawrence discovered more confusion over his sentence and drafted his request to appeal on Jan. 9, 2009. He gave it to a Reception and Diagnostic Center staff member to mail. Because he didn't have access to the law library on that date, his mail was handled outside the regular law library process - outgoing inmate mail on the weekends isn't processed, logged, or provide postmarks.

The trial court received the notice Jan. 16 and ruled it received the mail after the 30-day deadline to request an appeal and that Lawrence should pursue a belated motion to appeal. The trial court then denied him permission to file the belated notice of appeal.

The state had argued that Indiana hasn't stated a prison mailbox rule for criminal direct appeals. That rule says pro se filings from an incarcerated litigant are considered filed at the time they are delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the court. Indiana has recognized that rule in the post-conviction context in Dowell v. State, 908 N.E.2d 643 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009); the state claims that ruling only applies in state post-conviction proceedings and depositing a pleading with prison officials isn't recognized by Indiana Trial Rule 5(F) as a permissible manner of filing.

"We do not believe the holding in Dowell was intended to foreclose the prison mailbox rule's application to other matters; there was simply no need to make a more sweeping pronouncement as to its application to situations not relevant to that case," wrote Judge Margret Robb. She noted the appellate court found no reason why the same analysis making it applicable in post-conviction proceedings shouldn't also apply to direct appeals.

Lawrence's request for an appeal was given to prison officials five days before his deadline to file the notice of appeal, so it was timely filed. As such, the appellate court granted him permission to pursue a belated appeal on the merits.

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. Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend in December, but U.S. District Judge Robert Miller later reduced that to about $540,000 to put the damages for suffering under the statutory cap of $300,000.

  2. I was trying to remember, how did marriage get gay in Kentucky, did the people vote for it? Ah no, of course not. It was imposed by judicial fiat. The voted-for official actually represents the will of the majority in the face of an unelected federal judiciary. But democracy only is just a slogan for the powerful, they trot it out when they want and call it bigotry etc when they don't.

  3. Ah yes... Echoes of 1963 as a ghostly George Wallace makes his stand at the Schoolhouse door. We now know about the stand of personal belief over service to all constituents at the Carter County Clerk door. The results are the same, bigotry unable to follow the directions of the courts and the courts win. Interesting to watch the personal belief take a back seat rather than resign from a perception of local power to make the statement.

  4. An oath of office, does it override the conscience? That is the defense of overall soldier who violates higher laws, isnt it? "I was just following orders" and "I swore an oath of loyalty to der Fuhrer" etc. So this is an interesting case of swearing a false oath and then knowing that it was wrong and doing the right thing. Maybe they should chop her head off too like the "king's good servant-- but God's first" like St Thomas More. ...... We wont hold our breath waiting for the aclu or other "civil liberterians" to come to her defense since they are all arrayed on the gay side, to a man or should I say to a man and womyn?

  5. Perhaps we should also convene a panel of independent anthropological experts to study the issues surrounding this little-known branch of human sacrifice?

ADVERTISEMENT