Hollowell v. State
Decision Date | 30 October 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 49S02–1310–PC–684.,49S02–1310–PC–684. |
Citation | 19 N.E.3d 263 |
Parties | Anthony HOLLOWELL, Appellant (Petitioner below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Respondent below). |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Anthony Hollowell, Greencastle, IN, Appellant Pro Se.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Jodi Kathryn Stein, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02–1211–PC–900
From time to time a case is presented to us that neither implicates this Court's law-giving function, nor involves compelling issues of great public interest. This is such a case. But we elect to address the merits under the general heading of “doing substantial justice.” Here, despite a pro se petitioner's best efforts, his attempt to appeal the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief went awry and the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. We grant transfer and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
Anthony Hollowell was convicted of conspiracy to deal in cocaine as a class B felony and the trial court sentenced him to an executed term of sixteen years. Represented by counsel Hollowell appealed his conviction and sentence, which the Court of Appeals affirmed in a memorandum decision. See Hollowell v. State, No. 49A04–1012–CR–736, 2011 WL 3655147 (Ind.Ct.App. Aug. 19, 2011), trans. denied. Thereafter Hollowell filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. After an evidentiary hearing the post-conviction court denied relief on October 18, 2012.
Still acting pro se,1 on November 2, 2012 Hollowell filed his Notice of Appeal with the appellate court clerk. And his certificate of service declared that Hollowell mailed the notice to the trial court clerk, the court reporter, the trial court, and the attorney general. See Ind. Appellate Rule 9(F)(10) & 24(A)(1) ( ). The trial court clerk received a copy of the Notice, but for reasons not apparent from the record before us, neither the court reporter nor the trial court received a copy.
Further, Hollowell had attached to the Notice of Appeal a motion directed to the trial court requesting permission to proceed in forma pauperis, which, if granted, would have afforded Hollowell a copy of the post-conviction transcript at public expense. The motion should also have been filed with the trial court. See App. R. 40(A)(2). Although the appellate docket revealed that a motion to proceed in forma pauperis was pending in the trial court, it does not appear from the record that the trial court clerk ever received or filed such a motion. In addition, the trial court clerk did not immediately notify the court reporter that a transcript had been requested. See App. R. 10(A).
On January 28, 2013 (the day the transcript was due), the court reporter and the trial court judge filed with the Court of Appeals a document titled “Court Reporter's Emergency Verified Motion for Extension of Time to File Transcript.” The motion declared that Hollowell and the trial court clerk had failed to serve the court reporter and the trial court with a copy of the Notice of Appeal. According to the emergency motion, the court reporter first learned on December 20 that a transcript had been requested, but the motion does not reveal how the request for a transcript came to the court reporter's attention or why the court reporter's motion was not filed until January 28. In any event the motion also represented that “satisfactory arrangements have not been made for payment of the transcript with the court reporter.” Id. at 3. We presume this representation reflected that the trial court had either not yet received or otherwise ruled upon Hollowell's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court reporter's motion requested an extension of time in which to complete the transcript.
In response to the emergency motion, the Court of Appeals issued an order declaring that the court reporter had no obligation to prepare the transcript unless she received further direction from the Court of Appeals. The order also directed Hollowell to show cause within thirty-five days why the appeal should not be dismissed because he had (1) failed to serve a copy of the Notice of Appeal on the court reporter,2 and (2) failed to make payment arrangements for the transcript. See Hollowell v. State, No. 49A02–1211–PC–900 (Order, Feb. 8, 2013). The Order also warned: “Failure to timely respond to this order and comply with the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure may subject this appeal to dismissal.” Id. The Court of Appeals also granted Hollowell's Verified Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis. See id. (Order, Feb. 5, 2013).
Hollowell timely filed his “Response to Order” asserting that he had followed all the rules of appellate procedure, and pointing out the trial court clerk's obligation to notify the court reporter of the filing of the Notice of Appeal and request for transcript. See App. R. 10(A). Acknowledging Hollowell's response the Court of Appeals thereafter dismissed the appeal without further explanation. See No. 49A02–1211–PC–900 (Order, April 10, 2013). Hollowell sought transfer, which we granted on October 11, 2013 thereby vacating the Court of Appeals' order dismissing Hollowell's appeal. See App. R. 58A. Noting that because Hollowell was proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court directed that he was entitled to a transcript at public expense. Thereafter full briefing on the merits proceeded in due course.
The facts relevant to this appeal are set forth in the memorandum decision of the Court of Appeals as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Isom v. State
...performance: "(1) denial of access to an appeal; (2) waiver of issues; and (3) failure to present issues well." Hollowell v. State , 19 N.E.3d 263, 270 (Ind. 2014). Isom's claims fall in the second category. For such waiver-of-issues claims, "[i]neffectiveness is very rarely found" because ......
-
Wilson v. State
...conviction that a mistake has been made." Ben-Yisrayl v. State , 729 N.E.2d 102, 106 (Ind. 2000) (quotation omitted). Hollowell v. State , 19 N.E.3d 263, 268-69 (Ind. 2014).[16] While Wilson raises multiple arguments on appeal, we find one dispositive. Specifically, he argues that the post-......
-
State v. Stidham
...firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Id. We do not defer to the post-conviction court's legal conclusions. Hollowell v. State , 19 N.E.3d 263, 269 (Ind. 2014).[19] The State argues that Stidham's challenge of his sentence is barred by res judicata . Stidham argues that his direct ......
-
Bradbury v. State
...so prejudicial as to create a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different absent counsel's errors. Hollowell v. State , 19 N.E.3d 263, 268-69 (Ind. 2014) (applying Strickland standard). Counsel is afforded considerable discretion in choosing strategy and tactics, and these ......