Court Opinion

ID: 9724544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:00:48.41464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:02.218334
License: Public Domain

BARNES, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Although I concede the advisements given to Jackson by the trial court concerning his right to appeal were faulty, Jackson did not contest the length of his sentence for a period of three years. The Indiana Supreme Court decided Collins, and Jackson initiated this appeal. I simply do not think one can sit idly by for three years and then capitalize on a favorable ruling resulting in the granting of a belated appeal.
Here, the record establishes that although the trial court erroneously told Jackson he could not directly appeal any sentence imposed following his guilty plea, it did inform Jackson (again, erroneously) that he could challenge his sentence by filing a petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR petition”). Indeed, Collins was handed down for the purpose of clarifying that sentences following guilty pleas must be challenged by direct appeal and not by a PCR petition. Here, however, Jackson did not challenge the length of his sentence following his guilty plea for over three years, despite being told by the trial court that he could file a PCR petition if he wanted to challenge the sentence.2 Jackson did not do so.
*142To be granted permission to file a belated appeal, a defendant has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal was not his or her fault and that he or she was diligent in requesting permission to file a belated notice of appeal. Townsend v. State, 843 N.E.2d 972, 974 (Ind.Ct.App.2006), trans. denied (citing Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 2(1)). If a defendant (1) was sentenced following a guilty plea, pre-Collins, (2) was not advised of his right to appeal the sentence, (8) filed, within a reasonable time of sentencing, a PCR petition seeking in part to challenge the sentence, and (4) then post-Collins sought to dismiss a pending PCR petition and file a belated appeal to challenge the sentence, I would agree that permission to file a belated appeal should be granted almost as a matter of course in such a situation. Diligence and lack of fault, meeting the criteria of Post^Convietion Rule 2(1), would be met under those circumstances. There may be other circumstances where the defendant diligently pursued filing an appeal but did not timely do so, due to no fault of his or her own.
Collins, however, should not be used to permit en masse filing of belated appeals to challenge sentences following guilty pleas, especially ones where the defendant had never previously taken steps to attempt to challenge the length of his or her sentence. In other words, Collins should not be invoked as an invitation to disregard the requirements of Post-Conviction Rule 2(1) regarding diligence and lack of fault. That was not the intent of our decision in Baysinger v. State, 835 N.E.2d 223 (Ind.Ct.App.2005).
It is clear to me that there has been a great increase in the number of defendants seeking permission to file belated appeals challenging their sentences since Collins. Whether that is solely because of Collins or because of the proximity in time of both Collins and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), petitions for permission to file belated appeals must be closely scrutinized so as not to allow wholesale exceptions to the State’s interest in the finality of criminal proceedings.3 I believe the trial court correctly denied Jackson’s petition for permission to file a belated appeal and would affirm that decision.

. The chronological case summary does indi- ' cate that Jackson filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence with the trial court, which appears to have been directed towards the *142court’s calculation of his pre-sentencing credit time. He also at one time appears to have sought modification of his sentence from placement in the Department of Correction to a community corrections program. There is no indication Jackson has ever attempted to challenge the total length of his sentence, until now, nor did Jackson appeal the trial court’s rulings on his attempts to modify his sentence.

. This court is split on the question of whether a defendant filing a belated appeal can invoke Blakely, even if the sentence was imposed and the original time for filing a direct appeal passed long before Blakely was decided. See Gutermuth v. State, 848 N.E.2d 716, 730 (Ind.Ct.App.2006), trans. pending (holding defendant could rely on Blakely where he was sentenced long before Blakely was decided but later was granted permission to file belated appeal); see also Fosha v. State, 747 N.E.2d 549, 552 (Ind.2001) (stating "our rule that precludes retroactive application of new criminal rules to collateral proceedings does not apply to direct appeals brought pursuant to Post-Conviction Rule 2.”); but see Hull v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1250, 1256 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (holding opposite of Gutermuth). This debate might be moot if the Supreme Court decides in its next term in Burton v. Waddington, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2352, 165 L.Ed.2d 278 (2006) that Blakely should apply retroactively in collateral proceedings.