Steven E. Ingalls, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Apr 07 2020, 8:31 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.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Brian Buckner Baldwin Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Martinsville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Tiffany A. McCoy
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Steven E. Ingalls, Jr., April 7, 2020
Appellant/Cross-Appellee/Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-950
v. Appeal from the Morgan Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Brian H. Williams,
Judge
Appellee/Cross-Appellant/Plaintiff.
Trial Court Cause No.
55D02-1806-CM-1013
Friedlander, Senior Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-950 | April 7, 2020 Page 1 of 3
[1] On May 24, 2018, Steven Ingalls, Jr., carved his initials and his girlfriend’s first
initial and last name on the wall of the lockup in the Morgan County
Courthouse during a recess in his trial on other charges. On June 28, 2018, the
State charged Ingalls with Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief for his act of
vandalism. On January 25, 2019, the trial court found Ingalls guilty as charged
and imposed a thirty-day sentence, all suspended. On January 31, 2019, the
trial court appointed appellate counsel to Ingalls. On March 4, 2019, Ingalls’s
appellate counsel entered his appearance and sought leave to file a belated
motion to correct error, which the trial court granted. On March 25, 2019,
Ingalls filed a belated motion to correct error, which the trial court denied the
next day. On April 26, 2019, thirty-one days later, Ingalls filed a notice of
appeal.
[2] Ingalls argues that the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to
timely advise him of the consequences of failing to timely file a written demand
for a jury trial and that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We
need not address these claims on their merits, however, as we agree with the
State that Ingalls forfeited his right to appeal.
[3] It is undisputed that Ingalls filed his notice of appeal thirty-one days after the
trial court’s denial of his motion to correct error, or one day late. Pursuant to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-950 | April 7, 2020 Page 2 of 3
Indiana Appellate Rule 9(A)(5), “[u]nless the Notice of Appeal is timely filed,
1
the right to appeal shall be forfeited except as provided by P.C.R. 2.”
[4] It is true that the Indiana Supreme Court has concluded that forfeiture of the
right to appeal can be forgiven if there are “extraordinarily compelling reasons
why this forfeited right should be restored.” In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d
965, 971 (Ind. 2014). Ingalls, however, does not explain exactly which
“extraordinarily compelling” reasons should excuse his untimely filing. Ingalls
mentions that the fundamental liberty interest at issue in O.R. (the right of
parents to establish a home and raise their children) was part of the basis for the
restoration of the biological father’s right to appeal in that adoption case.
While this is true, no such interest is at stake in this case, as Ingalls’s thirty-day
sentence was wholly suspended. Ingalls also does not claim that circumstances
largely beyond his control, whether excusable neglect or something else, caused
his notice of appeal to be untimely. Based on the record before us, we have a
late notice of appeal but no apparent extraordinarily compelling reasons that
would justify restoring Ingalls’s right to appeal. Consequently, we dismiss
Ingalls’s appeal.
[5] Appeal dismissed.
Najam, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
1
Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 2(1) allows an eligible defendant to petition the trial court for permission to
file a belated notice of appeal, which Ingalls did not do.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-950 | April 7, 2020 Page 3 of 3