Opinion ID: 852278
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Mailing

Text: Our practice has required a pro se prisoner to provide reasonable, legitimate, and verifiable documentation supporting a claim that a document was timely submitted to prison officials for mailing. [1] For example, in the appeal of one Robert Johnson, we issued an order granting transfer and remanding to the Court of Appeals based on the mailbox rule. Johnson provided copies of a Legal Mail Log, an affidavit from a person identifying himself as a law librarian and the prisoner's own affidavit. We concluded that this evidence taken as a whole created a presumption that the prisoner functionally filed his documents on time. Johnson v. State, No. 02S05-0311-PC-582, order (Ind. Nov. 25, 2003). The Court of Appeals later issued a memorandum decision in his case. Johnson v. State, No. 02A05-0305-PC-233, memorandum op. 818 N.E.2d 156 (Ind.Ct. App., Nov. 16, 2004). We took the same approach as regards a different step in the processes governed by the appellate rules. A record of proceedings is considered as having been filed when it is deposited in the United States mail. App. R. 12(C) (1999). When appellant Julius C. Scott sent the record in his case, its postmark was one day late, and our clerk would not permit it to be filed. Scott thereafter tendered various proofs demonstrating that he had in fact submitted the record of proceedings to a prison employee for mailing on the due date for filing but that prison officials had not actually mailed the record until the next day. Scott provided an affidavit from the prison employee verifying that Scott presented the record to her on the date it was due but that she did not mail the record until the next day. We concluded that the delay in mailing was not due to any lack of diligence on Scott's part and that his filing would be considered timely. Scott v. State, No. 36A04-9911-PC-485, order (Ind. Sept. 5, 2000). Where a prisoner's proof is lacking, however, the opposite result obtains. Appellant Chris Naquin did file his record on time. He then faced the deadline for filing his brief. He received two extensions of time from the Court of Appeals and then asked for a third extension. He was turned down and sought relief here. In making his argument to us, he claimed that the institution in which he was incarcerated was under lockdown conditions for substantial periods during the time allotted for his briefing. In particular, he claimed that he was scheduled to go to the prison library to finalize his brief four days before it was due but that another lockdown occurred. Naquin did not produce any documentary support for these claims. We agreed with the Court of Appeals that he had not complied with the appellate rules and that his appeal could not go forward. Naquin v. State, No. 27A02-0008-PC-557, order, 774 N.E.2d 505 (Ind. Jan. 9, 2002). A similar result occurred when appellant Antonio Carney sought to file a petition to transfer, supplying his own verified motion that he had delivered it to prison officials for mailing on the final day. Carney did not enclose any documentation that tended to support this assertion, and we denied his motion. Carney v. State, No. 49A02-0802-CR-138, order (Ind. Jan. 15, 2009). If the question of Dowell's timeliness were covered by the appellate rules, we would agree with the State that Dowell has not any verifiable documentation. Dowell never claims in his own affidavit that he deposited his motion to correct error with prison authorities on or before August 6, 2008. Dowell does provide the affidavit of fellow prisoner James Franklin, who according to Dowell volunteered to help keep the law library afloat until the law clerks were off lockdown. (App. at 15.) As our examples above suggest, this is not a sufficiently reliable ground on which a presumption of timeliness can rest.