Jeremy Kyle Everhart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: BRYAN M. TRUITT Bertig & Associates, LLC Valparaiso, Indiana GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana IAN McLEAN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana FILED May 25 2012, 9:15 am IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA JEREMY KYLE EVERHART, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 64A04-1105-CR-253 APPEAL FROM THE PORTER SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Mary R. Harper, Judge Cause No. 64D05-0905-FB-5057 May 25, 2012 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY, Judge CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court Jeremy Everhart appeals several aspects of his convictions of and sentences for Class B and Class C felony child molesting. As his appeal was not timely filed, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The trial court sentenced Everhart to an aggregate sentence of sixteen years for Class B and Class C felony child molesting on April 5. On May 11, Everhart filed his motion for belated appeal and his belated notice of appeal. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 9(A)(1), a party must initiate an appeal within thirty days of the entry of final judgment. Pursuant to App. R. 9(A)(5), the right to appeal is forfeited unless the notice of appeal is timely filed, except as provided by Indiana PostConviction Rule 2, which states a defendant may petition the trial court for permission to file a belated notice of appeal of the conviction or sentence if certain criteria are met. The trial then shall permit the defendant to file the belated notice of appeal. P-C R. 2(1)(c). Everhart s appeal was due May 7, 2011. He filed a motion for belated appeal and belated notice of appeal on May 11, 2011. The record does not indicate whether the trial court granted Everhart s motion to file a belated appeal. Without the establishment of that fact, we do not have jurisdiction because Everhart s appeal was not timely. Accordingly, we dismiss. Dismissed. FRIEDLANDER, J., and BARNES, J., concur. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
