Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before
Jan 21 2014, 10:11 am
any court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
CHARLES E. HOWARD GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Pendleton, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
CYNTHIA L. PLOUGHE
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
CHARLES E. HOWARD, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 53A01-1304-CR-164
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MONROE CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Mary Ellen Diekhoff, Judge
Cause No. 53C05-0907-FB-582
January 21, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BRADFORD, Judge
CASE SUMMARY
Appellant-Defendant Charles Howard pled guilty to Class C felony burglary and
received an eight-year sentence. Howard filed a motion for jail time credit, which the trial
court denied. Howard then filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court dismissed the
same day. Forty-eight days later, Howard filed his notice of appeal from the trial court’s
denial of his motion to correct error. Concluding that Howard’s notice of appeal was
untimely, thereby denying this court jurisdiction, we dismiss.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 30, 2012, Howard pled guilty to Class C felony burglary and received
an eight-year sentence. On January 4, 2013, Howard filed a motion for credit time. On
January 23, 2013, the trial court denied Howard’s motion for credit time. On February 21,
2013, Howard filed a motion to correct error, which motion the trial court denied the same
day. On April 10, 2013, Howard filed his notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
The State contends that Howard’s untimely notice of appeal deprives this court of
jurisdiction over his appeal, requiring its dismissal. Indiana’s appellate rules require that a
notice of appeal be filed within thirty days after the entry of final judgment. Ind. Appellate
Rule 9(A)(1). In this case, the trial court denied Howard’s motion to correct error on
February 21, 2013, and his notice of appeal from the denial was not filed until April 10,
2013, forty-eight days later. This court has held repeatedly that the untimely filing of a notice
of appeal deprives this court of subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal and subjects it to
2
dismissal. See Tarrance v. State, 947 N.E.2d 494, 496 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (in case where
appellant filed untimely notice of appeal, concluding that “[b]ecause we lack subject matter
jurisdiction to consider Tarrance’s appeal, we dismiss”); Sewell v. State, 939 N.E.2d 686
(Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (in case where appellant merely sent handwritten letter to the trial court
requesting an appeal, concluding that appeal should be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction”). Because Howard’s notice of appeal was untimely, we must dismiss his appeal
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Dismissed.1
MATHIAS, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
1
In an order to be issued contemporaneously with this memorandum decision, we deny the State’s
previously-filed motion to dismiss as moot.
3