112 N.E.3d 763
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- Haddock pleaded guilty to one count of dealing in a narcotic (Level 3 felony) under a plea that included an appellate-waiver of his right to appeal sentence so long as the sentence fell within the plea terms; factual basis included commission in the physical presence of a child.
- At plea hearing Haddock acknowledged reviewing the plea and waiver with counsel; the court played a video advising that a guilty plea waives the right to appeal.
- The trial court sentenced Haddock to an aggravated 14-year term (12 years executed, 2 suspended), citing the child-presence fact as a sentencing aggravator.
- Haddock did not file a timely direct appeal. He later filed a pro se post-conviction petition (Sept. 2016); counsel appearances followed and proceedings were stayed; new counsel advised him in Feb. 2018 that an illegal-sentence claim could be appealed despite a waiver.
- In April 2018 Haddock filed a petition under Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 2 seeking permission to file a belated notice of appeal, arguing the child-presence aggravator was improper because it duplicated an element of the offense; the trial court denied the petition on the paper record without a hearing.
- This appeal challenges the denial of permission to file a belated notice of appeal; the Court of Appeals reverses and remands with instructions to grant the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Haddock's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Haddock is an "eligible defendant" under P-C.R. 2 to seek a belated notice of appeal | Haddock would have the right to directly appeal an illegal sentence despite his plea waiver, so he is eligible | Haddock waived his right to appeal his sentence in the plea agreement, so he is not eligible | Court: Haddock is eligible because a waiver does not bar challenge to an illegal sentence |
| Whether failure to timely file a notice of appeal was not due to Haddock's fault | Haddock relied on plea waiver and was not informed by counsel or court that an illegal-sentence appeal remained available; he only learned in Feb. 2018 | State: Haddock could have consulted counsel earlier and thus bears fault | Court: Haddock was not at fault — neither counsel nor court informed him of the right to appeal an illegal sentence |
| Whether Haddock was diligent in seeking permission for a belated appeal | Once informed (Feb. 2018), Haddock filed the P-C.R. 2 petition within two months (April 2018); overall delay explained by lack of awareness | State: Two-year lapse between sentencing and petition shows lack of diligence; Haddock didn’t raise the issue in his PCR petition | Court: Delay is reasonable given when Haddock learned of the right; he was diligent in filing after learning |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying the P-C.R. 2 petition without a hearing on the paper record | Haddock argued the undisputed record showed lack of fault and diligence | State defended the denial based on fault and lack of diligence | Court: Trial court erred; on the paper record Haddock met P-C.R. 2 requirements and should be allowed to file a belated notice of appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Moshenek v. State, 868 N.E.2d 419 (Ind. 2007) (defendant bears burden to prove lack of fault and diligence for belated appeal; factors to consider)
- Crider v. State, 984 N.E.2d 618 (Ind. 2013) (appellate-waiver valid unless sentence is illegal)
- Baysinger v. State, 835 N.E.2d 223 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (review de novo where trial court ruled on paper record)
- Collins v. State, 817 N.E.2d 230 (Ind. 2004) (challenge to sentence after an open plea must be by direct appeal or P-C.R. 2)
- Land v. State, 640 N.E.2d 106 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (factors relevant to fault and diligence under P-C.R. 2)