James v. State
| Decision Date | 17 July 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 62S01-8907-CR-541,62S01-8907-CR-541 |
| Citation | 541 N.E.2d 264 |
| Parties | Charles JAMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Jane Ruemmele, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Mary Dreyer, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for permission to file a belated motion to correct errors. The petition was filed and is governed by Post Conviction Rule 2, Section 2.
James was tried by a jury in absentia and sentenced in absentia on March 4, 1987. He was caught on April 24, 1987, and received by the Department of Correction on April 27, 1987, within sixty-days from the date of sentencing, and thus within the sixty day period granted by Criminal Rule 16 for filing the motion to correct errors. No timely motion to correct errors was filed, but on May 11, 1987, about a week after the sixty day period ran, the public defender received a letter from James requesting assistance. Though no such timely motion was filed, James did file a pro se petition for post-conviction relief on July 6, 1987.
The state public defender filed a petition for permission to file a belated motion to correct errors on April 21, 1988, which the trial court denied without a hearing, finding that he did not show that his failure to timely file such motion was not due to his own fault. The Court of Appeals affirmed. James v. State (1989), Ind.App. 534 N.E.2d 1113. We grant transfer.
The sentencing of James in absentia was proper. Williams v. State (1988), Ind., 526 N.E.2d 1179. However, his voluntary conduct in absenting himself from trial and sentencing does not alone work a forfeiture of the right to appeal. Evolga v. State (1988), Ind., 519 N.E.2d 532. Hiding from authorities when the time limit for filing a motion to correct errors expires may work such a forfeiture; however, when a person in appellant's circumstance is returned to custody within the time limit for filing, the failure to appear becomes a factor for the trial court to consider in deciding whether to grant permission to make a filing in a belated fashion. A petitioner's knowledge of his right and the rules regulating it, as well as his condition of confinement, would also be such factors. Other circumstances may bear upon the question as well.
Here, the trial court denied appellant's petition for authority to file the belated motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cleff v. State, 42A01-9009-CR-362
...for the trial court to consider when deciding whether to grant permission to file a belated motion to correct errors. James v. State (1989), Ind., 541 N.E.2d 264. A trial court ruling upon a petition for permission to file a belated praecipe must consider whether a defendant's "failure to f......
-
Pike v. State
...v. State (1986) Ind., 498 N.E.2d 380; Hays v. State (1989) 1st Dist. Ind.App., 534 N.E.2d 1111, trans. denied. But see James v. State (1989) Ind., 541 N.E.2d 264 (evidentiary hearing required where defendant had been tried, convicted and sentenced in absentia but was in custody before time ......
-
Kling v. State
...defendant in appeal from trial court's denial of his motion for permission to file belated motion to correct errors); James v. State, 541 N.E.2d 264 (Ind.1989) (noting State Public Defender filed a petition for permission to file a belated motion to correct errors on defendant's behalf and ......
-
Pike v. State
...thus warranting a judgment granting permission to commence a belated appeal, he is entitled to that opportunity. James v. State (1989), Ind., 541 N.E.2d 264; Zellers v. State (1977), 266 Ind. 111, 361 N.E.2d The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for a hearing on......