Opinion ID: 1444152
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bostic's Appeal Was Timely.

Text: Before addressing the merits of Bostic's appeal, we first consider the State's contention that Bostic's appeal was not timely. On August 22, 1996, the superior court issued its first opinion, affirming CSED's decision in part but remanding for a recalculation reflective of Bostic's incarceration. Although Bostic filed a timely notice of appeal of this decision on September 23, 1996, the appellate court clerk's office sent Bostic a notice that his appeal was not ripe for review because the superior court's order d[id] not appear to be final. Bostic then waited for CSED to recalculate his support obligation and for the superior court to reach its final decision on April 18, 1997, before again appealing in a timely manner. The State argues that the clerk's refusal to docket Bostic's first appeal of the superior court's August 1996 order was error and that Bostic's failure to seek review of the appellate clerk's decision should estop him from appealing the superior court's later order. The State also faults Bostic for failing to file a petition for review of the superior court's August 1996 order. The State's arguments are meritless. Although Bostic could have sought further review of the clerk's order, he was not obligated to do so. Furthermore, Appellate Rule 402 does not  require a litigant to petition for review of non-appealable orders. [8] We agree with Bostic that in light of his filing two timely notices of appeal, adopting the State's view would result in the ultimate injustice.