Ronald L. Sanford, Jr. v. State of Indiana

In August 1987, thirteen-year-old Sanford and a friend forced their way into

Sanford’s elderly neighbors’ home. Sanford demanded money from eighty

seven-year-old Julia Belmar and eighty-three-year-old Anna Harris. Sanford

stabbed both women multiple times, killing them.

[4] In March 1988, the State charged Sanford as a juvenile for his role in the

stabbing deaths of Belmar and Harris. In April 1988, the juvenile court waived

Sanford to adult court, where he was charged with two counts of murder, two

counts of class A felony robbery, two counts of class B felony criminal

confinement, one count of class A felony burglary, and two counts of felony

murder. Sanford was represented by a public defender. In March 1989, fifteen

year-old Sanford pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to two counts of

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1506-PC-485| January 29, 2016 Page 2 of 11

murder, one count of class A felony robbery, and one count of class B felony

burglary. The plea agreement left sentencing open. The State dismissed the

remaining charges. At Sanford’s guilty plea hearing, the trial court informed

him that he was waiving his right to appeal his convictions but not his right to

postconviction relief pursuant to Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1 (“PCR”). The

trial court did not advise Sanford that he had a right to appeal his sentence.

[5] In April 1989, the trial court sentenced Sanford to fifty years for each count of

murder, fifty years for robbery, and twenty years for burglary, all to be served

consecutively, for an aggregate sentence of 170 years. The trial court did not

advise Sanford that he had a right to appeal his sentence.

[6] Between February 1991 and November 1995, Sanford filed four requests with

the trial court for transcripts so that he could prepare a PCR petition. All his

requests were denied without explanation. During this time, he also filed two

requests with the juvenile court for transcripts, which were also denied.

Sanford did not know what else to do and stopped filing motions.

[7] In February 2004, Sanford wrote a letter to the State Public Defender’s Office

seeking advice on how to obtain his transcripts. That same month, a deputy

public defender responded to Sanford with a letter, which read,

Most courts will not give you a copy of your transcripts unless there is a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief pending. …. The only thing you can do is to file a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and try to put down things that you remember from your guilty plea. The good thing is that you will be able to amend your petition once it is filed and you are able to obtain your

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1506-PC-485| January 29, 2016 Page 3 of 11

transcripts from the court. Once you have read the transcripts, you will be able to add any issues you find. (If you ask for our representation, our office will request your transcripts and amend your petition if necessary.)

Petitioner’s Ex. G.

[8] In March 2005, Sanford filed a motion to request transcripts, which the trial

court denied on March 31, 2005. The trial court indicated that it was denying

the motion because “[n]othing is pending.” Appellant’s App. at 7.

[9] In January 2006, Sanford sent a public record request to the Marion County

Clerk’s Office seeking copies of all the filings in his case. The clerk’s office

informed Sanford that both the paper and the microfilm versions of the original

case file were missing, but a new file had been opened the prior year to

accommodate new filings. The clerk provided Sanford with copies of the new

filings.

[10] In July 2006, Sanford filed a pro se PCR petition and request for transcripts.

He declined representation from the State Public Defender. In September 2006,

the trial court granted Sanford’s motion for transcripts and scheduled a hearing.

In January 2007, Sanford moved to reschedule the hearing because he had not

received the transcripts, and the trial court granted the motion. In June 2007,

Sanford wrote the trial court that he had received the transcript of the

sentencing hearing but not the guilty plea hearing. The trial court ordered that

the guilty plea transcript be provided to Sanford. In August 2007, Sanford

wrote the trial court that he had not received the transcript of the guilty plea

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1506-PC-485| January 29, 2016 Page 4 of 11

hearing, and the trial court again ordered that the transcript be provided to

Sanford. In October 2007, Sanford again moved for a continuance because he

had not received the transcript, which the trial court granted.

[11] In April 2008, Sanford had still not received the transcript of the guilty plea

hearing, and he moved to withdraw his PCR petition without prejudice, which

the trial court granted. In January 2010, Sanford filed a motion requesting that

the court compel compliance with its order granting Sanford’s motion for the

transcript of the guilty plea hearing. The trial court denied the motion because

nothing was pending. Id. at 52.

[12] In June 2011, Sanford filing another pro se PCR petition. The trial court

appointed the State Public Defender to represent Sanford. Sanford, by counsel,

requested three continuances of the PCR evidentiary hearing.

[13] In February 2015, Sanford, by counsel, filed a petition for permission to file a

belated appeal of his sentence pursuant to Post-Conviction Rule 2 and

requested that his PCR petition be held in abeyance. The trial court granted

Sanford’s request that his PCR petition be held in abeyance. In April 2015, the

trial court held a hearing on Sanford’s petition for permission to file a belated

appeal. Sanford submitted a posthearing memorandum in support of his

petition, which the trial court accepted and considered before making its ruling.

[14] In May 2015, the trial court issued a written order with factual findings denying

Sanford’s petition for permission to file a belated appeal. The trial court found

that Sanford was not at fault for not filing a timely notice of appeal but also

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1506-PC-485| January 29, 2016 Page 5 of 11

found that he had not shown that he had been diligent in seeking an appeal

because (1) he made no attempts to either obtain transcripts or make any other

filings for almost nine and a half years between 1995 and 2005, and (2) he

delayed filing his PCR petition until July 2006 even though he learned in

February 2005 from the public defender that once he filed his PCR petition he

would be able to obtain his transcripts and could amend his PCR petition. This

appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

Section 1 – The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Sanford’s petition for permission to file belated appeal.

[15] We review the trial court’s decision whether to grant permission to file a belated

notice of appeal for an abuse of discretion. Moshenek v. State, 868 N.E.2d 419,

422 (Ind. 2007). We will affirm the trial court’s ruling unless it was based on an

error of law or a clearly erroneous factual determination. Id. at 423-24.

[16] To successfully obtain permission to file a belated notice of appeal, the

defendant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that “the failure to

file a timely notice of appeal was not due to the fault of the defendant” and “the

defendant has been diligent in requesting permission to file a belated notice of

appeal.” Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 2(1)(a); Moshenek, 868 N.E.2d at 422-23.

“There are no set standards of fault or diligence, and each case turns on its own

facts.” Moshenek, 868 N.E.2d at 423. “Because diligence and relative fault are

fact sensitive, we give substantial deference to the trial court’s ruling.” Id. “The Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1506-PC-485| January 29, 2016 Page 6 of 11

trial court is in a better position to weigh evidence, assess the credibility of

witnesses, and draw inferences.” Id. at 424.

[17] Sanford challenges the trial court’s finding that he did not carry his burden to

establish that he was diligent in seeking an appeal. Several factors are relevant

in determining whether a defendant was diligent. “Among them are the overall

passage of time; the extent to which the defendant was aware of relevant facts;

and the degree to which delays are attributable to other parties.” Id.; see also

Cole v. State, 989 N.E.2d 828, 831 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied; Russell v.

State, 970 N.E.2d 156, 160 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied; Bosley v. State, 871

N.E.2d 999, 1002 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).1 “When the overall time stretches into

decades, a belated appeal becomes particularly problematic because of the risk

that significant problems will be encountered in any retrial due to unavailable

evidence or witnesses or failing memories.” Moshenek, 868 N.E.2d at 424.

[18] Here, the trial court found that Sanford had failed to show that he was diligent

because he made no attempt to either obtain transcripts or make any other

filings for almost nine and a half years between November 1995, when he filed

a motion for transcripts, and March 2005, when he filed another motion for

transcripts. Sanford asserts that the trial court’s finding that he was not diligent

is erroneous as a matter of law because he cannot be faulted for failing to

pursue a challenge to his sentence when he did not have the transcripts.

1 The parties refer to other factors, but those factors relate to the determination of fault, which is not in issue here.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1506-PC-485| January 29, 2016 Page 7 of 11



Although we understand Sanford’s frustration with the repeated denials of his

requests for transcripts between February 1991 and November 1995, the lack of

progress during that time does not explain the following nine years of inaction

that passed before he contacted the public defender for advice in 2004.2

[19] The trial court also found that Sanford delayed filing his PCR petition until July

2006 even though he learned in February 2004 from the public defender that

once he filed his PCR petition he would be able to obtain his transcripts and

could amend his PCR petition. Sanford argues that he reasonably did not

follow the public defender’s guidance because he “wasn’t ready to proceed” and

“did [not] want to put something into court that was going to [get him]

procedurally rejected out because it was factually untrue or incorrect.” Tr. at

27. Sanford’s argument is unavailing on appeal because the trial court, not this

Court, was in the best position to assess the credibility of Sanford’s testimony,

and its ruling is entitled to substantial deference. See Moshenek, 868 N.E.2d at

2 Sanford also argues that prior to our supreme court’s ruling in Collins v. State, 817 N.E.2d 230 (Ind. 2004), Indiana law permitted a defendant to challenge a sentence without a showing of diligence via a PCR petition, and therefore, as a matter of law, he was diligent prior to Collins for purposes of obtaining permission to file a belated notice of appeal. In Collins, our supreme court resolved a split in the Court of Appeals as to whether a challenge to a sentence imposed following an open plea must be brought as a direct appeal or by a PCR petition and held that the proper procedure for challenging an open sentence was by direct appeal. Id. at 233. With regard to whether pre-Collins diligence is required for a post-Collins petition for permission to file a belated appeal, we observe that our supreme court has held that defendants who had not sought to challenge their sentences through a PCR petition before Collins had not been diligent and their post-Collins petitions for permission to file belated appeal were denied. See Witt v. State, 867 N.E.2d 1279, 1282 (Ind. 2007) (defendant who had not filed PCR petition before Collins and did not seek permission to file belated notice of appeal until nineteen months after Collins was not diligent); Moshenek, 868 N.E.2d at 424 (defendant who had not challenged his sentence in pre-Collins PCR petition was not diligent). And in Johnson v. State, 898 N.E.2d 290 (Ind. 2008), our supreme court found that Johnson acted with diligence where his PCR petition explicitly challenging his sentence was filed “within a reasonable period of time under pre-Collins practice.” Id. at 292. Accordingly, we reject Sanford’s notion that prior to Collins he was diligent as a matter of law.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1506-PC-485| January 29, 2016 Page 8 of 11



424. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in

finding that Sanford failed to prove that he was diligent in seeking an appeal.

Section 2 – Sanford is not entitled to directly appeal his sentence due to extraordinarily compelling circumstances.

[20] Sanford next contends that pursuant to O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965, his right to appeal

may be restored. In O.R., our supreme court addressed whether a father’s

failure to timely file an appeal of an order granting an adoption petition in favor

of the foster parents deprived the appellate courts of jurisdiction over the

appeal. The O.R. court began with an examination of Indiana Appellate Rule

9(A) which reads,

A party initiates an appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk ... within thirty (30) days after the entry of a Final Judgment is noted in the Chronological Case Summary. * * * Unless the Notice of Appeal is timely filed, the right to appeal shall be forfeited except as provided by P.C.R. 2.

(Emphasis added.) The O.R. court explained that a party’s forfeiture of the

right to appeal does not mean that the appellate courts lose their authority to

hear the appeal. 16 N.E.3d at 971. Rather, the question becomes whether there

are “extraordinarily compelling reasons” why this forfeited right should be

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1506-PC-485| January 29, 2016 Page 9 of 11

restored.3 Id. Sanford asserts that such reasons exist in this case, and therefore

his forfeited right to appeal his sentence should be restored.

[21] The State asserts that “[n]othing in the Supreme Court’s decision suggests that

it was meant to apply where a specific rule establishing the requirements for

pursuing a belated appeal already exists.” Appellee’s Br. at 18. We agree.

Appellate Rule 9 provides that the right to appeal shall be forfeited except as

provided by Post-Conviction Rule 2. Thus, criminal defendants already have a

means whereby an untimely appeal may be restored and that is by filing a

petition for permission to file a belated notice of appeal pursuant to Post

Conviction Rule 2. Parties in a civil action do not have such a built-in safety

valve. O.R. provides civil litigants a means by which the right to appeal may be

restored that is otherwise unavailable in the Indiana Rules of Court. In fact, the

showing required for criminal defendants under Post-Conviction Rule 2–lack of

fault and diligence–is easier to satisfy than that required for civil litigants under

O.R. Accordingly, we decline to extend O.R. to criminal defendants who are

eligible to avail themselves of Post-Conviction Rule 2.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Sanford’s petition for permission to file a belated notice of appeal.

Affirmed.