Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A man challenging the denial of his bond reduction motion cannot pursue a belated appeal under Post-Conviction Rule 2, the Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled Wednesday, finding no “extraordinarily compelling reasons” to reinstate his forfeited appeal.
The case of Martez James Sevion Jr. v. State of Indiana, 23A-CR-1107, began in April, when the Madison Circuit Court denied Martez Sevion Jr.’s motion to reduce his $100,000 bond.
Sevion had been charged in September 2022 with felony drug dealing counts, and online court records indicate he pleaded guilty last month to Level 5 felony dealing in a narcotic drug. He was sentenced to five years in the Department of Correction, with two years suspended.
After the trial court denied his bond reduction motion, Sevion moved to certify the order for interlocutory appeal, which the trial court denied. His deadline for direct appeal was May 3, the same day he moved for the appointment of appellate counsel.
On May 9, appointed appellate counsel filed a Post-Conviction Rule 2 request for a belated appeal, which the trial court granted. A notice of appeal was filed May 16.
On appeal, Sevion argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a bond reduction, while the state argued Sevion is ineligible to file a belated appeal under PCR 2.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the state and dismissed the appeal.
“We have repeatedly found defendants ineligible to file a belated appeal under PCR 2 in situations falling outside the rule’s text,” Judge Leanna Weissmann wrote. “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.’
“… The same result follows here,” Weissmann wrote. “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.”
But the COA also had to address In re adoption of O.R., 16 N.E. 3d 965 (Ind. 2014), which allows the court to restore a forfeited appeal under “extraordinarily compelling reasons.”
The appellate court disagreed with the state’s argument that O.R. does not apply to defendants who are ineligible for relief under PCR 2.
“Of course, a defendant must still avail himself of this relief to receive its benefit,” Weissman wrote. “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,” she continued. “… 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.
“… More importantly, O.R. involved the alleged deprivation of a ‘fundamental liberty interest,’” Weissmann concluded. “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.”
Chief Judge Robert Altice and Judge Dana Kenworthy concurred.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.