Dixon v. State, 84A04-8912-CR-555
| Decision Date | 14 February 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 84A04-8912-CR-555,84A04-8912-CR-555 |
| Citation | 566 N.E.2d 594 |
| Parties | Robert L. DIXON, Appellant/Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee/Plaintiff. 1 |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Dennis R. Majewski, Terre Haute, for appellant/defendant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Gary Damon Secrest, Deputy Atty. Gen., Office of Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee/plaintiff.
Robert L. Dixon appeals his two-count conviction for Dealing in Cocaine, a Class B Felony. We sua sponte raise the issue whether this court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal. We conclude that we do not and dismiss the appeal.
Dixon was sentenced on July 5, 1989. He filed a motion to correct errors and memorandum in support on September 4, 1989, sixty-one (61) days after sentencing. The trial judge denied the motion on September 12, 1989. Dixon filed his praecipe on September 14, 1989.
The Indiana Supreme Court recently amended the rules governing appeals. The first set of amendments, effective January 1, 1989, was quickly superseded by a second set that became effective February 16, 1989. The February 16, 1989 amendment, in effect at the time Dixon was sentenced, provides, in pertinent part:
(A) When Mandatory. A Motion to Correct Error is not a prerequisite for appeal, except when a party seeks to address newly discovered material evidence, including alleged jury misconduct, capable of production within thirty (30) days of final judgment which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered and produced at trial.
All other issues and grounds for appeal appropriately preserved during trial may be initially addressed in the appellate brief.
(B) Time for Filing With Judge or Clerk. It shall be deemed sufficient filing of a Motion to Correct Error within thirty (30) days of sentencing in a cause.... Trial Rule 59 (Motion to Correct Error) will apply to criminal proceedings insofar as applicable and when not in conflict with any specific rule adopted by this court for the conduct of criminal procedure.
Ind.Crim.Rule 16 ().
Ind.Trial Rule 59 provides in pertinent part:
(C) Time for Filing: Service on Judge. The motion to correct error, if any, shall be filed not later than thirty (30) days after the entry of a final judgment....
(D) Errors Raised by Motion to Correct Error, and Content of Motion. Where used, a Motion to Correct Error need only address those errors found in Trial Rule 59(A)(1) and (2) [].
Thus, a motion to correct error is not a prerequisite for an appeal of a criminal case unless the issue raised is based on newly discovered evidence. When newly discovered evidence is alleged, a motion to correct error is mandatory and a failure to file the motion in a timely manner precludes appellate review. Skolnick v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 461, 417 N.E.2d 1103, 1104. Timely filing is a jurisdictional act and an absolute precondition to appeal. Matter of Guardianship of Green (1988), Ind.App., 525 N.E.2d 634, 635.
Under the new appellate rules, a party filing a motion to correct error need not raise every issue in the motion that will be raised on appeal. To be preserved, only those issues making the motion mandatory need to be raised in the motion. T.R. 59(D). In his motion to correct errors, Dixon raised the issues (1) whether the trial court erred in denying Dixon's motion for change of venue, and (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. On appeal, Dixon raises the issue whether the trial court erroneously excluded certain testimony.
Clearly, Dixon did not raise an issue that mandated filing a motion to correct error in order to preserve an appeal. His was an optional motion filed after the thirty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKnight v. State
...motion must be filed within thirty days after the judgment in order to preserve the appellant's right to appeal. See Dixon v. State, 566 N.E.2d 594, 596 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. denied;Ind. Trial Rule 59(C). In Dowell v. State, 922 N.E.2d 605 (Ind.2010), our supreme court specifically note......
-
CNA Ins. Companies (CNA) v. Vellucci
...prerequisite, and, therefore, noncompliance with applicable time limits results in forfeiture of the appeal. Dixon v. State (1991), Ind.App., 566 N.E.2d 594; Hughes v. Morgan County (1983), Ind.App., 452 N.E.2d 447; Bailey v. Sullivan (1982), Ind.App., 432 N.E.2d We find the case of In re E......
-
Meredith v. State
...that a rule which allowed an appellant 30 days after submission to file a brief was jurisdictional and mandatory); Dixon v. State, 566 N.E.2d 594 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) (holding that Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction for appeal when appellant failed to meet the thirty day deadline for f......
-
Dowell v. State
...581 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) (appeal dismissed after trial court wrongly purported to grant an extension); Dixon v. State, 566 N.E.2d 594, 596 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) ("if an appellant files a motion to correct error that is not mandatory under the rules, the motion must be filed within thir......