Title: Clark v. State
Citation: 506 N.E.2d 819
Docket Number: 1085S394
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: April 22, 1987

506 N.E.2d 819 (1987)
Robert Dale CLARK, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
No. 1085S394.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
April 22, 1987.
*820 Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Hope Fey, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
DICKSON, Justice.
Defendant Robert Dale Clark appeals from the denial of his petition for permission to file a belated motion to correct errors under Post-conviction Rule 2, § 1 of the Indiana Rules of Procedure, which provides:
It is undisputed that a timely and adequate motion to correct error was not filed for the defendant. The factual issues before the post-conviction court were whether this failure was due to the defendant's fault and whether the defendant had been diligent in requesting permission to file his belated motion. If both grounds exist, the defendant must be permitted to file the motion. If either does not exist, the trial court must deny the permission.
When appealing from the denial of a post-conviction petition, the petitioner has the burden of proof and stands in the shoes of one appealing from a negative judgment. We will reverse the judgment of the post-conviction trial court as being contrary to law only if, considering only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the judgment, without weighing evidence or assessing witness credibility, the evidence is without conflict and leads to a conclusion opposite the judgment reached by the post-conviction trial court. Young v. State (1984), Ind., 470 N.E.2d 70; Lowe v. State (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 1126.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of rape, unlawful deviate conduct and confinement, and sentenced on February 14, 1980. At that time, pursuant to Criminal Rule 11 of the Indiana Rules of Procedure, the trial court provided a full and complete advisement regarding defendant's appeal rights and made the required complete record. Defendant informed the *821 court that he had no questions regarding his rights to appeal, and responded affirmatively when the trial court offered him an opportunity to discuss with his attorney any questions with respect to these rights to appeal. Following a brief recess, the following exchange occurred:
The deadline for filing a timely motion to correct error elapsed on April 14, 1980. It was not until August 26, 1980, that defendant first manifested his desire to initiate an appeal. At that time, he filed a motion to obtain a trial transcript. On March 2, 1981, the defendant sent notice to the Indiana State Public Defender's office requesting their assistance, and on June 18, 1984, the public defender's office filed defendant's petition for permission to file belated motion to correct errors.
We need not review the evidence relating to the delay between August 26, 1980, and June 18, 1984. Most pertinent to our review is the four-month period following defendant's sentencing, and whether the defendant, as post-conviction petitioner, sustained his burden of proof in showing that the failure to file the timely motion was not due to his fault, and that he had been diligent in requesting permission to file the belated motion.
Defendant's sole contention is that this delay is attributable solely to the defendant's reaction to his trial attorney's advice. He argues that he should be excused because his attorney's negative assessment of his prospects on appeal. We disagree.
The absolute right to one appeal, as assured by Article 7, § 6 of the Constitution of Indiana and implemented by Criminal Rule 11, does not preclude a waiver of that right. Defendant was fully informed by the court of his rights to appeal, and yet failed to take any steps to file his motion to correct error within the prescribed time. We find the evidence insufficient to show either absence of defendant's fault or the existence of diligence on his part. The right to appeal was waived, and no grounds for relief from that waiver have been shown. The evidence before the post-conviction *822 court does not lead to a conclusion opposite the judgment reached.
Affirmed.
SHEPARD, C.J., and DeBRULER, GIVAN and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur.