Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1708-CR-1895 | February 8, 2018 Page 1 of 4

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Larry David Blanton, Jr.

New Castle, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis, T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Kelly A. Loy

Supervising Deputy Attorney 

General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Larry D. Blanton, Jr.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

February 8, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

53A05-1708-CR-1895

Appeal from the Monroe Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Mary Ellen 

Diekhoff, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

53C05-0404-FA-360

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1708-CR-1895 | February 8, 2018 Page 2 of 4

[1] Larry David Blanton, Jr., pro se, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition 

to file a belated appeal from the denial of his motion to correct erroneous 

sentence.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] Following a jury trial in February 2006, Blanton was convicted of three counts 

of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class C felony child 

molesting. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 105 years in 

prison, with 30 of those years suspended. On direct appeal, Blanton challenged 

the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and the 

appropriateness of his sentence. Blanton prevailed on the sentencing argument, 

and his aggregate sentence was reduced to 30 years in prison. Blanton v. State, 

Cause No. 53A01-0606-CR-226 (Ind. Ct. App. April 19, 2007). On remand, 

the trial court resentenced Blanton accordingly on October 12, 2007.

[4] On February 24, 2017, Blanton filed a pro se motion to correct erroneous 

sentence, along with a memorandum of law. Following the State’s response, 

the trial court denied the motion on April 24, 2017. Due to a mailing error, 

Blanton apparently did not receive a copy of this order until May 22, 2017, and 

he claims that access to the prison’s law library was restricted from this date 

though May 26, 2017. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1708-CR-1895 | February 8, 2018 Page 3 of 4

[5] On June 26, 2017, Blanton filed a motion for leave to file a belated notice of 

appeal pursuant to Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 2(1), which was denied by the 

trial court on July 19, 2017. Blanton appeals from that denial, claiming that the 

trial court abused its discretion.

Discussion & Decision

[6] Indiana Appellate Rule 9(A)(5) provides that unless the notice of appeal is 

timely filed, the right to appeal shall be forfeited except as provided by P-C.R. 

2. Relying on P-C.R. 2(1)(a), Blanton argues that his failure to file a timely 

notice of appeal was not his fault and that he had been diligent in requesting 

permission to file a belated notice of appeal. Regardless, Blanton is not an 

eligible defendant for purposes of P-C.R. 2 because he is not pursuing a direct 

appeal.1 Our Supreme Court has consistently recognized that P-C.R. 2 “applies 

only to direct appeals of criminal convictions” and cannot be used to salvage a 

late appeal of the denial of a motion to correct erroneous sentence. In re 

Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965, 970 n.2 (Ind. 2014) (emphasis in original); see 

also Davis v. State, 771 N.E.2d 647, 649 (Ind. 2002) (“P-C.R. 2(1) does not 

permit belated appeals of motions to correct erroneous sentences”), abrogated in 

part on other grounds by O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965. Accordingly, the trial court did not 

 

1

P-C.R. 2 defines an “eligible defendant” as “a defendant who, but for the defendant’s failure to do so 

timely, would have the right to challenge on direct appeal a conviction or sentence after a trial or plea of 

guilty by filing a notice of appeal, filing a motion to correct error, or pursuing an appeal.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A05-1708-CR-1895 | February 8, 2018 Page 4 of 4

err when it denied Blanton’s motion for leave to file a belated notice of appeal

from the denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence.

[7] Judgment affirmed.

[8] May, J. and Vaidik C.J., concur.