Dalvonte Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jan 22 2020, 6:50 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Dalvonte Jones Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Michigan City, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Jesse R. Drum
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Dalvonte Jones, January 22, 2020
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-PC-2061
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kurt M. Eisgruber,
Appellee-Respondent. Judge
The Honorable Steven J. Rubick,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G01-1611-PC-42909
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-2061 | January 22, 2020 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] Dalvonte Jones (“Jones”) attempts to belatedly appeal the trial court’s denial of
his petition for post-conviction relief. We address only the dispositive issue of
whether his appeal should be dismissed as untimely.
[2] We dismiss.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In 2014, Jones was found guilty of murder and sentenced accordingly. This
court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. Jones v. State, 38 N.E.3d 742
(Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. On October 11, 2016, Jones filed a petition
for post-conviction relief (“PCR”). The trial court denied Jones’s PCR petition
on May 15, 2018. On July 31, 2018, Jones filed a “Request for Leave to File a
Belated Motion to Correct Error” and a “Belated Motion to Correct Error.”
App. at 15. On August 2, 2018, the trial court denied Jones’s belated motion to
correct error without issuing a ruling on Jones’s request for leave to file that
motion.
[4] Jones filed his notice of appeal on August 28, 2018. The State filed a motion to
dismiss Jones’s appeal as untimely, and the motions panel of this court denied
the State’s motion to dismiss.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-2061 | January 22, 2020 Page 2 of 4
Discussion and Decision
[5] The State continues to assert that Jones’s appeal should be dismissed as
untimely. We agree.1
[6] Generally, appeals from final judgments—including appeals from PCR
decisions—must be filed within thirty days after the entry of final judgment or
else the right to appeal is forfeited. Ind. Appellate Rule 9(A)(1), (5). The Post-
Conviction Relief Rules provide an exception: “Post-Conviction Rule 2
provides an avenue by which certain criminal defendants may pursue a direct
appeal—from a conviction or sentence—after the time for filing a notice of
appeal has expired.” Core v. State, 122 N.E.3d 974, 977 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
However, our Supreme Court has made it clear that the right to seek permission
to file a belated appeal2 under that PCR rule applies only to direct appeals, not
appeals of PCR decisions. Id. (citing Hill v. State, 960 N.E.2d 141, 148 (Ind.
2012), and Howard v. State, 653 N.E.2d 1389, 1390 (Ind. 1995)). The right to
seek permission to file a belated motion to correct error under PCR Rule 2(2)
also applies only to direct appeals, not PCR actions. Sceifers v. State, 663 N.E.2d
1191, 1192 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. In short, there is no Indiana rule
1
The motions panel ruled that Jones’s appeal was timely because it was filed within thirty days of the date
the trial court denied Jones’s belated motion to correct error. However, the motions panel did not address
the fact that this is not a direct appeal but an appeal from a final PCR decision. And it is well-settled that we
may reconsider a decision of our motions panel. E.g., Treacy v. State, 953 N.E.2d 634, 636 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App.
2011), trans. denied.
2
We note that Jones never sought or obtained permission from the trial court to file a belated notice of
appeal per the procedures outlined in PCR Rule 2(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-2061 | January 22, 2020 Page 3 of 4
allowing for a belated motion to correct error or a belated appeal of a final PCR
judgment. Id.; Core, 122 N.E.3d at 977. Thus, we have held that a post-
conviction petitioner who fails to timely file a notice of appeal of a final PCR
judgment has “permanently extinguished his opportunity to appeal” that
judgment. Core, 122 N.E.3d at 977. And, while this court has authority to
restore a forfeited right of appeal if there are “extraordinarily compelling
reasons to do so,” Jones has pointed to no such extraordinarily compelling
reasons and we find none. Id. at 977 (citing In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d
965, 971 (Ind. 2014)).
[7] The trial court denied Jones’s PCR petition on May 15, 2018. As no belated
motion to correct error (which would extend the time for filing a notice of
appeal) was authorized by the rules, Jones was required to file his Notice of
Appeal within thirty days of May 15, 2018. He did not do so.3 Therefore, he
forfeited his right to appeal the denial of his PCR petition, and we dismiss this
appeal.
[8] Dismissed.
Kirsch, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
3
We recognize that Jones appeals pro se. However, it is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same
legal standards as licensed attorneys and must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to
follow the established rules of procedure. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-2061 | January 22, 2020 Page 4 of 4