Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1603-PC-602 | October 26, 2016 Page 1 of 3

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

Michael Bertram

Pendleton, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Ellen H. Meilaender

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Michael Bertram,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

October 26, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

32A05-1603-PC-602

Appeal from the Hendricks 

Superior Court

The Honorable Stephenie LeMayLuken, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

32D05-1512-PC-10

May, Judge.

[1] Michael Bertram appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for 

post-conviction relief. He asserts the post-conviction court erred when it failed 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1603-PC-602 | October 26, 2016 Page 2 of 3

to transfer his petition to the State Public Defender. The State agrees. We 

reverse and remand with instructions.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On May 7, 2015, Bertram pled guilty to Class C felony burglary1 and to a 

habitual offender enhancement.2

 He received an eight-year sentence, to be 

served consecutively to another sentence. On December 17, 2015, Bertram 

filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. Included with his petition were a 

request for assistance from the public defender and an affidavit of indigency. 

The record contains no indication the petition was referred to the State Public 

Defender. Nor did a public defender ever enter an appearance.

[3] On February 22, 2016, the State requested summary disposition. The postconviction court granted the State’s request and summarily denied Bertram’s 

petition for post-conviction relief. 

Discussion and Decision

[4] Bertram and the State agree this case should be reversed and remanded to the 

post-conviction court with instructions to refer Bertram’s petition to the State 

Public Defender’s office. We agree. 

 

1 Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1 (2014).

2 Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1603-PC-602 | October 26, 2016 Page 3 of 3

[5] Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1, § 2 states, in pertinent part, that “[i]f the court 

finds the indigent petitioner is incarcerated in the Indiana Department of 

Correction, and has requested representation, it shall order a copy of the 

petition sent to the Public Defender’s office.” Our Indiana Supreme Court has 

explained this rule’s two purposes: 

First, it provides the indigent petitioner with counsel thereby 

facilitating the orderly and coherent prosecution of the claim 

through the trial and appeal courts. Secondly, it insures that the 

petition will be presented in the form required by the rule which 

in turn effectively implements the underlying policy which is to 

limit the number of post-conviction petitions so far as 

constitutionally permissible by requiring all known and felt 

grievances to be aired in the original or first petition. 

Sanders v. State, 273 Ind. 30, 32, 401 N.E.2d 694, 695 (1980).

[6] Bertram requested representation by the Public Defender’s office and attached 

an affidavit of indigency. The record does not indicate his petition was 

forwarded to the State Public Defender’s office, and the post-conviction court’s 

failure to do so is reversible error. See Cox v. State, 52 N.E.3d 17, 19 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2016) (lack of referral is reversible error). Thus, we reverse the summary 

disposition and remand with instructions for the post-conviction court to refer

Bertram’s petition to the State Public Defender’s office.

[7] Reversed and remanded with instructions.

Kirsch, J., and Crone, J., concur.