Title: In the Matter of the Certified Question:  Kevin Isom v. Ron Neal
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 21S-CQ-00545
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: January 28, 2022

I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 21S-CQ-545 
Kevin Isom, 
Petitioner, 
–v– 
Ron Neal, 
Respondent. 
Decided: January 28, 2022 
Certified Questions from the  
United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana 
Case No. 2:21-CV-231-HAB 
The Honorable Holly A. Brady, Judge 
Per Curiam Opinion 
Chief Justice Rush and Justices David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Jan 28 2022, 10:44 am
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S-CQ-545 | January 28, 2022 
Page 2 of 3 
Per curiam. 
Kevin Isom has been sentenced to death for the murders of his wife and 
his two stepchildren, his convictions and sentences have been affirmed on 
direct appeal and post-conviction review in state court, and he has now 
petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court, 
Northern District of Indiana. Contemporaneously with his petition, Isom 
filed a “Motion for Statutory and/or Equitable Tolling,” which raises 
questions about the legal effect of this Court’s unpublished January 13, 
2017 order directing the trial court to file Isom’s state post-conviction 
petition despite its defects. The District Court has issued an “Opinion and 
Order” certifying to this Court pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 64 the 
following two questions in connection with its consideration of that 
motion: 
(1) Is a petition for post-conviction relief, tendered to a trial court 
without the verification required by Post-Conviction Rule 1, 
Sections 2 and 3, properly filed? 
(2) If not, does a later order of the Indiana Supreme Court, which 
neither affirms nor reverses a trial court order dismissing an 
unverified petition but orders the petition filed by the trial court as 
of the date of the Supreme Court’s order, render the unverified 
petition properly filed as of the date of its initial submission? 
In her thoughtful opinion, Judge Brady anticipates that the answers to 
both of these questions are “no” but concludes the answers, which are 
governed by state law, should come from this Court. We agree with Judge 
Brady in all respects. 
Accordingly, the certified questions are hereby ACCEPTED, and we 
answer both questions “no.”1 The unverified post-conviction petition Isom 
 
1 When accepting a certified question, we often set a schedule for briefing on the questions 
raised. But here, the parties briefed—and orally argued—related issues as part of Isom’s state 
post-conviction appeal. In light of those extensive arguments, we find further briefing on 
these certified questions unnecessary. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S-CQ-545 | January 28, 2022 
Page 3 of 3 
tendered to the Lake Superior Court in January 2016 was not “properly 
filed” as of the date of its initial submission, nor did our subsequent order 
issued in January 2017 render Isom’s post-conviction petition “properly 
filed” as of the date of its initial submission.   
Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur. 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  PET I TI O NE R  
Shawn Nolan 
Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
Frances Watson 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  RES P O N DE N T  
Theodore E. Rokita 
Attorney General of Indiana 
Andrew Kobe 
Deputy Attorney General 
Kelly A. Loy 
Deputy Attorney General 
Indianapolis, Indiana