954 N.E.2d 972
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- In 2000, Driver was convicted of murder, which the Indiana Supreme Court later affirmed.
- Driver pursued post-conviction relief; the trial court denied relief on November 12, 2009.
- A copy of the post-conviction judgment arrived at counsel Skodinski’s office but was not reviewed or sent to Driver.
- Driver later sought information about his case; on September 7, 2010, the trial court mailed him a copy of the judgment.
- On October 29, 2010, Driver filed a Verified Motion to Vacate Judgment; the trial court denied it.
- The appellate court held the motion untimely under Trial Rule 72(E) because Driver obtained actual knowledge on September 7, 2010 and the filing was after the 30-day appeal window.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion. | Driver contends TR 72(E) requires relief. | State argues untimeliness under 72(E) limits relief. | No abuse; motion untimely under TR 72(E). |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. Covenant Mut. Ins. Co., 644 N.E.2d 116 (Ind.1994) (Trial Rule 72—not Trial Rule 60 for lack of notice extensions)
- Vaughn v. Schnitz, 673 N.E.2d 501 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (standard for abuse of discretion review under TR 72(E))
- Soft Water Utils., Inc. v. LeFevre, 301 N.E.2d 745 (Ind.1973) (pre-TR 72 framework; cited re: change to TR 72 after Collins)