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.

APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

CHARLES E. HOWARD GREGORY F. ZOELLER 

Pendleton, Indiana 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. ) No. 53A01-1304-CR-164

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

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MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
2

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 
3

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.

 

1

 In an order to be issued contemporaneously with this memorandum decision, we deny the State’s 

previously-filed motion to dismiss as moot.