12 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Dowell v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Id. at 643-44 . [5] The prison mailbox rule says that a “pro se incarcerated litigant who delivers [a document] to prison officials for mailing on or before its due date accomplishes a timely filing.” Dowell v. State, 922 N.E.2d 605, 607 (Ind. 2010). 2016Docket (notice of appeal filed December 7, 2015); Appellee’s Br. p. 5 (accord); see Dowell v. State, 922 N.E.2d 605, 607 (Ind. 2010) (adopting the prison mailbox rule). | 3 | 6 |
Erik Morales v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2016Morales v. State, 19 N.E.3d 292, 296 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). 2016Cf. Morales v. State, 19 N.E.3d 292 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (reviewing the appeal of a pro se post-conviction petitioner who filed his notice of appeal one day late where he could have petitioned for rehearing to show timely compliance with the notice of appeal filing requirement under the prison mailbox rule), trans. denied. [19] Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1511-CR-2039 | August 31, 2016 Page 10 of 11 [20] Dismissed.11 Bradford, J., and Altice, J., concur. 11 Our decision to dismiss this appeal should not be construed to reflect our position on the merits of the issue | 1 | 2 |
Chris E. Harkins v. Shannon Westmeyer, Jon Niklas, Angie Harkins, and Janet Harkinsgreen1 sentence2019See Dowell, 922 N.E.2d at 608 ; see also Harkins v. Westmeyer, 116 N.E.3d 461, 469-70 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). | 1 | 1 |
Lawrence v. Stategreen2 sentences2015The prison mailbox rule “provides that pro se filings from an incarcerated litigant are considered filed at the time they are delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the court.” Lawrence v. State, 915 N.E.2d 202, 205 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. 2015The prison mailbox rule “provides that pro se filings from an incarcerated litigant are considered filed at the time they are delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the court.” Lawrence v. State, 915 N.E.2d 202, 205 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Dowell v. Stategreen1 sentence2010The *607 Court of Appeals held that Dowell's pro se motion to correct error filed while he was incarcerated was timely, invoking the prison mailbox rule Dowell v. State, 908 N.E.2d 643, 648 (Ind.Ct.App.2009). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Kenneth N. Craiggreen1 sentence2010See United States v. Craig, 368 F.3d 738, 740 (7th Cir.2004). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hartsgrovegreen2 sentences2009See Commonwealth v. Hartsgrove, 407 Mass. 441 , 553 N.E.2d 1299 (1990) (holding that pro se defendant is deemed to have filed his notice of appeal from conviction and sentence upon giving the notice to prison authorities); see also Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles, 46 Cal.4th 106 , 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 595 , 205 P.3d 1047, 1057-58 (2009) (collecting state cases applying the prison mailbox rule to various proceedings, both criminal and civil); Sup.Ct. 2009See Commonwealth v. Hartsgrove, 407 Mass. 441 , 553 N.E.2d 1299 (1990) (holding that pro se defendant is deemed to have filed his notice of appeal from conviction and sentence upon giving the notice to prison authorities); see also Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles, 46 Cal.4th 106 , 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 595 , 205 P.3d 1047, 1057-58 (2009) (collecting state cases applying the prison mailbox rule to various proceedings, both criminal and civil); Sup.Ct. | 1 | 1 |
Silverbrand v. County of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences2009See Commonwealth v. Hartsgrove, 407 Mass. 441 , 553 N.E.2d 1299 (1990) (holding that pro se defendant is deemed to have filed his notice of appeal from conviction and sentence upon giving the notice to prison authorities); see also Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles, 46 Cal.4th 106 , 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 595 , 205 P.3d 1047, 1057-58 (2009) (collecting state cases applying the prison mailbox rule to various proceedings, both criminal and civil); Sup.Ct. 2009See Commonwealth v. Hartsgrove, 407 Mass. 441 , 553 N.E.2d 1299 (1990) (holding that pro se defendant is deemed to have filed his notice of appeal from conviction and sentence upon giving the notice to prison authorities); see also Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles, 46 Cal.4th 106 , 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 595 , 205 P.3d 1047, 1057-58 (2009) (collecting state cases applying the prison mailbox rule to various proceedings, both criminal and civil); Sup.Ct. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Houston v. Lack
green
2 sentences2018The "prison mailbox rule" recognizes that pro se "prisoners cannot personally travel to the courthouse to see that the notice is stamped 'filed' or to establish the date on which the court received the notice." Id. [26] The prison mailbox rule provides that "a pro se incarcerated litigant who delivers a [document] to prison officials for mailing on or before its due date accomplishes a timely filing"; and the document is deemed "filed" on the date of submission to prison officials. 2014Morales is incarcerated at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility in Carlisle, Indiana, and thus the prison mailbox rule announced in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 , 108 S.Ct. 2379 , 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988) is implicated. | 3 | 2009–2018 |
Henley v. State
green
1 sentence2019Id. at 643-44 . [5] The prison mailbox rule says that a “pro se incarcerated litigant who delivers [a document] to prison officials for mailing on or before its due date accomplishes a timely filing.” Dowell v. State, 922 N.E.2d 605, 607 (Ind. 2010). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Zimmerman v. Hanks
green
1 sentence2015Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1505-SC-499 | December 29, 2015 Page 6 of 8 [13] As this court has previously observed, a “trial court should not be able to deprive a prisoner of his constitutional right to maintain a civil action by denying motions that the court can properly deny while concurrently ignoring the prisoner’s requests for other methods that would allow the prisoner to prosecute from prison.” Zimmerman, 766 N.E.2d at 758 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Baker v. State
green
1 sentence2009"Given this [Indiana] authority and our agreement with the rationale of Houston, we now expressly hold that the prison mailbox rule is applicable to state post-conviction matters." Id. at 648 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.