Pike v. State
| Decision Date | 11 April 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 49S02-9104-PC-295,49S02-9104-PC-295 |
| Parties | William E. PIKE, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Addie D. Hailstorks, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Jane A. Morrison, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
William E. Pike, III, brought an appeal from the judgment of the Marion Municipal Court denying his Petition for Permission to File a Belated Motion to Correct Errors, which post-conviction petition had been filed in the trial court pursuant to Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 2. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Pike v. State (1990), Ind.App., 557 N.E.2d 1. Appellant seeks transfer. Transfer is granted.
The record of proceedings shows that in January 1985, appellant was tried by jury on a charge of theft, was convicted, and received a sentence of three years, with two years thereof suspended. Appellant, with the aid of the State Public Defender, filed his post-conviction petition in July 1988, seeking the trial court's permission to file a belated motion to correct errors, an evidentiary hearing on the petition, the preparation of the trial transcript, and the grant of sixty days after receipt of the transcript in which to file the belated motion to correct errors. Two weeks later, without response from the State, the trial court entered a judgment denying the petition without stating any grounds or conducting a hearing. This is an appeal from that judgment.
Appellant's petition was governed by Post-Conviction Rule 2. That rule was amended after this judgment by adding a provision recognizing a means for seeking court permission to file a belated praecipe for the record. This amendment did not alter the most basic burdens of the defendant bringing a petition under the rule. The premise of the rule continues to be that there are circumstances in which it is equitable and just for a court to permit an appeal in a criminal case to go forward, though it had not been taken in a timely manner in accordance with governing court rules. Such equitable and just circumstances exist and such permission to go forward should be granted where, in the parlance of the rule, the defendant alleges and sustains the burden of proving (1) that the failure to take required procedural steps to exercise the right of appeal was not due to the fault of the defendant and (2) that the defendant has been diligent in requesting the court's permission to proceed. Brandon v. State (1976), 264 Ind....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
..."subsequent negative consequences of an earlier conviction," Pike v. State (1990), Ind.App., 557 N.E.2d 1, 3, vacated on other grounds, 569 N.E.2d 650. "[W]e have often held that one who pleads guilty need not be advised [by the court] that the conviction might have adverse but future colla......
-
Trujillo v. State
...“subsequent negative consequences of an earlier conviction,” Pike v. State (1990), Ind.App., 557 N.E.2d 1, 3, vacated on other grounds, 569 N.E.2d 650. “[W]e have often held that one who pleads guilty need not be advised [by the court] that the conviction might have adverse but future colla......
-
Kling v. State
...is not the only case in which the State Public Defender has represented persons seeking relief under P-C.R. 2. See, e.g., Pike v. State, 569 N.E.2d 650 (Ind.1991) (noting State Public Defender represented defendant in appeal from trial court's denial of his motion for permission to file bel......