Court Opinion

ID: 9905487
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 17:04:51.712726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:37.270598
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                        Nov 29 2023, 9:34 am

                                                                            CLERK
                                                                        Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                           Court of Appeals
                                                                             and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
David W. Stone IV                                         Theodore E. Rokita
Anderson, Indiana                                         Attorney General of Indiana
                                                          Ian McLean
                                                          Deputy Attorney General
                                                          Indianapolis, Indiana

                                           IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Martez James Sevion Jr.,                                  November 29, 2023
Appellant-Defendant,                                      Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                          23A-CR-1107
        v.                                                Appeal from the Madison Circuit
                                                          Court
State of Indiana,                                         The Honorable Angela Warner
Appellee-Plaintiff                                        Sims, Judge
                                                          Trial Court Cause No.
                                                          48C01-2209-F1-2731

                             Opinion by Judge Weissmann
                    Chief Judge Altice and Judge Kenworthy concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-1107 | November 29, 2023                           Page 1 of 6
      Weissmann, Judge.

[1]   Accused of dealing drugs that caused a fatal overdose, Martez Sevion Jr.

      requested a reduction of his $100,000 bond. The trial court denied this request,

      and Sevion missed the deadline to appeal the decision. So, Sevion attempted to

      resurrect his forfeited appeal via Post-Conviction Rule 2 (PCR 2). But PCR 2

      does not apply to the denial of a bond reduction motion, and finding an

      insufficient basis to restore Sevion’s forfeited appeal, we dismiss.

      Facts
[2]   Dissatisfied with the order setting a $100,000 surety bond, Sevion moved to

      reduce his bond amount. The timeline of the relevant events is as follows:

              • April 3, 2023 – Trial court denied Sevion’s motion to reduce
                bond.

              • April 18, 2023 – Sevion filed a pro se motion to certify the
                order for interlocutory appeal.

              • May 1, 2023 – The trial court denied the interlocutory appeal
                motion.

              • May 3, 2023 – Deadline for Sevion’s direct appeal. And
                Sevion separately moved for the appointment of appellate
                counsel.

              • May 5, 2023 – Trial court appointed appellate counsel.

              • May 9, 2023 – Sevion’s counsel filed a PCR 2 request for a
                belated appeal.

              • May 10, 2023 – Trial court grants the PCR 2 motion.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-1107 | November 29, 2023     Page 2 of 6
               • May 16, 2023 – Notice of appeal filed.

[3]   In his belated appeal, Sevion argues the trial court erred in denying his motion

      to reduce bond. The State cross-appeals, seeking dismissal of this appeal by

      claiming Sevion is ineligible to file a belated appeal under PCR 2.

      Discussion and Decision
[4]   Post-Conviction Rule 2 provides a path to an appeal for some defendants who

      have missed the procedural filing deadline. The rule applies only to defendants

      “who, but for the defendant’s failure to do so timely, would have the right to

      challenge on direct appeal a conviction or sentence after a trial or plea of guilty

      by filing a notice of appeal, filing a motion to correct error, or pursuing an

      appeal.” Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 2. In other words, PCR 2 is a “vehicle for

      belated direct appeals alone.” Howard v. State, 653 N.E.2d 1389, 1390 (Ind.

      1995).

[5]   We have repeatedly found defendants ineligible to file a belated appeal under

      PCR 2 in situations falling outside the rule’s text. For instance, post-conviction

      proceedings and probation revocations are excluded from PCR 2 relief because

      those scenarios do not challenge a defendant’s “conviction or sentence.”

      Dawson v. State, 943 N.E.2d 1281, 1281 (Ind. 2011) (probation); Cummings v.

      State, 137 N.E.3d 255, 257 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (post-conviction proceedings).

      The same result follows here. Because a bond reduction motion does not

      challenge “a conviction or sentence,” it similarly does not qualify. Thus, Sevion

      was not eligible to file a belated appeal under PCR 2.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-1107 | November 29, 2023      Page 3 of 6
[6]   That said, under In re adoption of O.R., we may restore an otherwise forfeited

      appeal when there are “extraordinarily compelling reasons” to do so. 16 N.E.3d

      965, 971 (Ind. 2014). But rather than argue that no such reasons support

      hearing Sevion’s appeal, the State claims O.R. does not apply to defendants

      who are ineligible for PCR 2 relief. We disagree.

[7]   The State relies on just one case in support of its claim: Core v. State, 122 N.E.3d

      974 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). In Core, this Court found O.R. inapplicable to a post-

      conviction petitioner ineligible for PCR 2, reasoning that such a petitioner “has

      permanently extinguished his opportunity to appeal.” Id. at 974 (emphasis added).

      Yet Core is plainly an outlier in this respect. Cases decided in the wake of Core

      have uniformly applied O.R. to defendants ineligible for PCR 2 relief. See, e.g.,

      Beasley v. State, 192 N.E.3d 1026, 1029-30 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (applying O.R.

      to ineligible PCR 2 defendant); Cummings, 137 N.E.3d 255 at 257 n.3 (same).

[8]   We also see no justification for not applying O.R. to situations like Sevion’s. In

      effect, O.R. acts as a fail-safe where procedural defaults would render forfeiture

      of an appeal shockingly unfair. Guiding this principle is the recognition that

      procedural rules are simply the means to an end, not the end itself. See O.R., 16

      N.E.3d at 971-72 (“[W]e are mindful that our procedural rules are merely

      means for achieving the ultimate end of orderly and speedy justice.” (internal

      quotation omitted)). Because a defendant’s eligibility for the procedural

      mechanisms of PCR 2 has little bearing, if any, on the existence of

      “extraordinarily compelling reasons” to hear the merits of his claim, O.R. relief

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-1107 | November 29, 2023       Page 4 of 6
       is still available to a post-conviction petitioner who fails to timely file a notice of

       appeal. Id. at 971.

[9]    Of course, a defendant must still avail himself of this relief to receive its benefit.

       Sevion did not. Sevion never asserted O.R.’s standard of extraordinarily

       compelling reasons in his present appeal or during his time as a pro se

       petitioner. The most that can be said is that Sevion asked this Court to exercise

       its inherent authority to consider an otherwise waived appeal. Ind. Appellate

       Rule 1 (“The Court may, upon the motion of a party or the Court’s own

       motion, permit deviation from these Rules.”). But the only basis for Sevion’s

       argument is that his appellate counsel was appointed after the filing deadline

       had passed. This claim alone is not enough.

[10]   First, it does not excuse Sevion’s failure to file the notice of appeal prior to

       obtaining counsel. See Shawa v. Gillette, 209 N.E.3d 1196, 1200 n.2 (Ind. Ct.

       App. 2023) (holding pro se litigant to the same standard as a licensed attorney).

       And second, it does not by itself represent an extraordinarily compelling reason

       to consider an otherwise waived appeal. In O.R., the late appointment of

       appellate counsel was considered just one fact among several that justified the

       restoration of the waived appeal. 16 N.E.3d at 971-72. More importantly, O.R.

       involved the alleged deprivation of a “fundamental liberty interest.” Id. at 972.

       Sevion nowhere alleges the existence of such an interest, nor any similarly

       compelling reason to consider his appeal, and we decline to make these

       showings on his behalf.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-1107 | November 29, 2023         Page 5 of 6
[11]   Dismissed.

       Altice, C.J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-1107 | November 29, 2023   Page 6 of 6