Charles E. Howard 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. Jan 21 2014, 10:11 am APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: CHARLES E. HOWARD Pendleton, Indiana GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana CYNTHIA L. PLOUGHE Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA CHARLES E. HOWARD, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 53A01-1304-CR-164 APPEAL FROM THE MONROE CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Mary Ellen Diekhoff, Judge Cause No. 53C05-0907-FB-582 January 21, 2014 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BRADFORD, Judge CASE SUMMARY Appellant-Defendant Charles Howard pled guilty to Class C felony burglary and received an eight-year sentence. Howard filed a motion for jail time credit, which the trial court denied. Howard then filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court dismissed the same day. Forty-eight days later, Howard filed his notice of appeal from the trial court s denial of his motion to correct error. Concluding that Howard s notice of appeal was untimely, thereby denying this court jurisdiction, we dismiss. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On September 30, 2012, Howard pled guilty to Class C felony burglary and received an eight-year sentence. On January 4, 2013, Howard filed a motion for credit time. On January 23, 2013, the trial court denied Howard s motion for credit time. On February 21, 2013, Howard filed a motion to correct error, which motion the trial court denied the same day. On April 10, 2013, Howard filed his notice of appeal. DISCUSSION AND DECISION The State contends that Howard s untimely notice of appeal deprives this court of jurisdiction over his appeal, requiring its dismissal. Indiana s appellate rules require that a notice of appeal be filed within thirty days after the entry of final judgment. Ind. Appellate Rule 9(A)(1). In this case, the trial court denied Howard s motion to correct error on February 21, 2013, and his notice of appeal from the denial was not filed until April 10, 2013, forty-eight days later. This court has held repeatedly that the untimely filing of a notice of appeal deprives this court of subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal and subjects it to 2 dismissal. See Tarrance v. State, 947 N.E.2d 494, 496 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (in case where appellant filed untimely notice of appeal, concluding that [b]ecause we lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider Tarrance s appeal, we dismiss ); Sewell v. State, 939 N.E.2d 686 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (in case where appellant merely sent handwritten letter to the trial court requesting an appeal, concluding that appeal should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction ). Because Howard s notice of appeal was untimely, we must dismiss his appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dismissed.1 MATHIAS, J., and PYLE, J., concur. In an order to be issued contemporaneously with this memorandum decision, we deny the State s previously-filed motion to dismiss as moot. 1 3
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.
