Manges v. State

• Docket Number: 23A-PC-1602
• Decision Date: 24 April 2024
• Parties: Timothy Manges, Appellant-Petitioner v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Respondent
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

1

Timothy Manges, Appellant-Petitioner
v.
State of Indiana, Appellee-Respondent

No. 23A-PC-1602

Court of Appeals of Indiana

April 24, 2024

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.

Appeal from the Elkhart Superior Court Trial Court Cause No. 20D03-2107-PC-000021 The Honorable Teresa L. Cataldo, Judge

APPELLANT PRO SE Timothy Manges Elkhart, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General Sierra A. Murray Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana Abigail Recker Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Felix, Judge

Statement of the Case

[¶1] This court authorized Timonthy Manges to file a successive petition for postconviction relief (the "SPCR Petition"). After Manges filed the SPCR Petition, the SPCR court mistakenly denied Manges' petition as being unauthorized but later reversed course after Manges filed a motion to correct error (the "MTCE"). Seemingly important here, Manges attached to the MTCE an undated and unfiled petition to file a belated appeal as well as a copy of this court's order granting Manges permission to file the SPCR Petition. After an evidentiary hearing, the SPCR court determined that the only matter pending was Manges's petition to file a belated appeal and denied the same. Manges now appeals and raises one issue for review: Whether the SPCR court entered sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law on the SPCR Petition under Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(6).

[¶2] Although we conclude the SPCR court entered sufficient findings on the issues raised in the SPCR Petition, because the SPCR court mistakenly used its findings to deny a motion for a belated appeal that had not been authorized by this court instead of the SPCR Petition, we remand with instructions to the SPCR court to enter an order denying the SPCR Petition.

Facts and Procedural History

[¶3] In late 2001, a jury found Manges guilty of child molesting as a Class A felony in Cause 20D03-0012-CF-00186. In early 2002, the trial court sentenced

3

Manges to 50 years in the Indiana Department of Correction. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court advised Manges of his right to appeal, and Manges expressly declined the appointment of appellate counsel. Shortly thereafter, Manges, pro se, initiated an appeal. Manges later hired private counsel to represent him on appeal, but that counsel failed to timely file an appellant's brief, which resulted in this court dismissing Manges's appeal. Manges's private counsel eventually withdrew, and Manges filed a pro se petition with this court seeking permission to file a belated appeal. In 2005, this court granted Manges's petition to file a belated appeal, and in 2007, this court affirmed Manges's conviction and sentence, Manges v. State, 860 N.E.2d 928, No. 20A05-0504-CR-181, slip op. (Ind.Ct.App. Jan. 24, 2007). The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer. Manges v. State, 869 N.E.2d 452 (Ind. 2007).

[¶4] In October 2007, Manges filed a PCR petition, which the PCR court denied in 2010. Manges appealed, and this court affirmed the trial court's denial. Manges v. State, 933 N.E.2d 590, No. 20A05-1003-PC-186, slip op. (Ind.Ct.App. Sept. 16, 2010). The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer. Manges v. State, 940 N.E.2d 830 (Ind. 2010).

[¶5] On April 14, 2021, Manges petitioned this court for permission to file a SPCR petition. On June 18, 2021, this court granted Manges's petition to file a SPCR petition. On July 8, 2021, Manges, pro se, filed the SPCR Petition in Cause 20D03-2107-PC-00021. In the SPCR Petition, Manges alleges he was denied assistance of counsel while pursuing (1) his petition to file a belated appeal, (2) his belated direct appeal, and (3) his first PCR petition.

4

[¶6] On August 2, 2021, the SPCR court dismissed the SPCR Petition as an improperly filed successive petition. On August 31, 2021, Manges, by counsel, filed the MTCE, requesting the SPCR court "correct error in regard to the August 2, 2021, Order dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Post-conviction Relief." Appellant's App. Vol. II at 29. The MTCE focuses solely on the SPCR Petition and makes no mention of a petition for permission to file a belated appeal. However, Manges attached two exhibits to the motion: (A) the SPCR Petition and (B) our June 18, 2021, order. Notably, attached to the SPCR Petition was an undated and unfiled Petition for Permission to File a Belated Appeal in Manges's underlying criminal case (the "Belated Appeal Petition"). In the SPCR Petition, Manges specifically states the Belated Appeal Petition is an attachment to the SPCR Petition: "That appeal was dismissed when [direct appeal counsel] failed to file an Appellant's Brief. See attached Petition." Appellant's App. Vol. II at 44-45.

[¶7] At a hearing on February 17, 2022, the SPCR court confirmed that Manges received permission to file the SPCR Petition, confirmed that it had granted Manges's MTCE allowing him to proceed with the...