Opinion
24A-CR-1561
12-16-2024
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Mark Allen Bates Office of Lake County Public Defender Crown Point, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Ian McLean Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Lake Superior Court The Honorable Natalie Bokota, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 45G02-2310-F4-167
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Mark Allen Bates Office of Lake County Public Defender Crown Point, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Ian McLean Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
BROWN, JUDGE
[¶1] Lironte Devon Biggs appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to correct error as untimely filed. Finding that Biggs's motion was not untimely filed, we reverse and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] The State, in an amended information, charged Biggs with unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon as a level 4 felony. In April 2024, the trial court held a jury trial. On April 16, 2024, the jury found Biggs guilty as charged. That same day, the court issued an order stating that the State moved for judgment of conviction to be entered on the verdict and that the court granted the motion. The court also scheduled a sentencing hearing for May 1, 2024.
[¶3] On May 1, 2024, the court held a hearing. The court stated:
We've had something very unusual happen that we need to address concerning Mr. Biggs's case that's set for sentencing. As the parties may know, whenever a jury trial is held, the court administrator's office mails out a jury questionnaire to obtain feedback, putting it simply, on how we're doing, food, accommodations, staff, et cetera.
The jury commissioner advised me that he received back a questionnaire. They are, of course, anonymous, so we have no idea who sent this, and I would like the parties to please approach so I can give you all a copy and we can discuss what, if any, motions
you would like to make concerning it.... And the record will show all parties are being handed the document.
The record includes a "Juror Service Exit Questionnaire" which was part of Biggs's June 27, 2024 motion to correct error filings. Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 67. With respect to "Age," the numbers "45-54" are circled. Id. With respect to "Sex," the word "Male" is circled. Id. With respect to "Educational Level," the number "4" is circled under "College." Id. In response to the question, "[i]n what ways do you think jury service can be improved," the words "2nd Page" are written, and the attached page states: "Jury service could have been better if one would know how to turn in an individual who looked up the case and stood on as a juror. This didn't sit right with me the second day as a juror." Id. at 67-68. In response to the question, "[d]uring deliberation, were you influenced by other jurors," the words "(Response on 2nd page)" are written, and the attached page states:
After first vote I was pressured by others to choose the way everyone voted on deliberation because they wanted to go home. One Juror mentioned that he looked up the defendant on "mycase.gov" and he wasn't a "good" person. That alone got everyone to decide one way but ignored the case at hand. I changed my vote due to everyone's feelings. They totally ignored what we were there for and that was to strictly focus on this one case. I felt this individual didn't get a fair trial due to lack of evidence.Id.
Transcript Volume III at 85-86. The court then stated:
So having now read the document, I will make this observation before . . . we proceed further, so, first of all, the jury commissioner checked all documentation in their possession, and I always keep my list of jurors who were seated as well as all of their questionnaires. I carefully reviewed, three times, all of the questionnaires. According to the questionnaires that we all had in our possession during jury selection, there is no man on the jury who was 45 to 54 years of age with 4 years of college.Id. at 86. Biggs's counsel requested that the proceedings be adjourned and stated that she would like an opportunity to research the matter. The court addressed Biggs and stated "[defense counsel] is going to show you the letter that we got from someone purporting to be a juror, and I'm going to let you read that before I say anything else so that you're a part of this." Id. at 88. The court later stated, "at the conclusion of the trial, the Court did grant the State's motion to enter judgment. As you know, that is very important in terms of what decisions you might make concerning any motions you might file, so judgment was entered." Id. The court stated that it preferred to receive any motion in writing. The court set a hearing for May 30, 2024.
[¶4] On May 30, 2024, the court held the scheduled hearing. Biggs's counsel informed the court "we did have an opportunity to take the deposition of Mr. Goldman . . . the jury administrator . . . and we have done an internal investigation as to what appears to be juror misconduct." Id. at 95. She stated "we've also reviewed the statutory framework and our procedural rules, and I don't think that there's anything at this juncture prior to sentencing . . . that I can file." Id. She stated, "I think we need to go forward with the sentencing hearing. I am going to file a motion to correct error. I am going to ask for an evidentiary hearing. We will be prepared to do that once the sentencing phase is done[.]" Id. The court heard evidence and arguments as to sentencing and sentenced Biggs to eight years. The court issued an abstract of judgment dated June 26, 2024.
[¶5] On June 27, 2024, Biggs filed a motion to correct error. Biggs argued that juror misconduct revealed by the returned juror questionnaire deprived him of an impartial jury and requested a new trial. Together with his motion, Biggs filed an affidavit of Melissa Shocaroff, who was employed by the Office of the Lake County Public Defender, an affidavit of E.C., who stated he was a person who served on the jury in Biggs's trial, and the deposition of Martin Goldman, the court administrator with the Lake County Superior Court, which included the completed Juror Service Exit Questionnaire as an exhibit. On June 28, 2024, the trial court issued an order denying Biggs's motion to correct error, stating the motion was untimely filed.
Discussion
[¶6] Biggs argues the trial court erred in summarily denying his motion to correct error. He points to Ind. Criminal Rule 5.3 and argues that he was sentenced on May 30, 2024, he filed his motion to correct error on June 27, 2024, and thus his motion was timely. He argues, "[a] long-standing principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the sentencing date, not the jury verdict, triggers the timing for moving to correct error from a final judgment." Appellant's Brief at 14. Biggs also requests that this Court grant him a new trial without remanding for a hearing because the trial court "expressed skepticism that the exit questionnaire was legitimately returned by a juror" and the affidavits attached to his motion were uncontradicted. Id. at 16.
[¶7] The State argues this Court should remand for a hearing on Biggs's motion to correct error and agrees that the motion was timely. It argues the trial court was "incorrect to conclude that the 30-day deadlines of Trial Rule 59(C) and Criminal Rule 5.3 had begun when judgment of conviction was entered on the guilty verdict prior to sentencing" and "[t]hat deadline began to run when Biggs was sentenced on May 30, 2024." Appellee's Brief at 14. It also argues the trial judge is not unfit to hear proceedings on remand and Biggs "does not explain why his accusations . . . would entitle him to skip trial-court proceedings and litigate his motion directly to this Court." Id. at 15 n.4.
[¶8] In his reply brief, Biggs does not request that this Court grant a new trial. Rather, he requests that this Court reverse and remand with instructions to hold a hearing on his motion to correct error.
[¶9] Generally, we review a trial court's ruling on a motion to correct error for an abuse of discretion. Becker v. State, 992 N.E.2d 697, 700 (Ind. 2013). But when, as here, a motion to correct error depends on a question of law, we review the trial court's resolution of that question de novo. Id.
[¶10] Ind. Criminal Rule 5.3, titled Motion to Correct Error, provides:
(A) When Mandatory.
A motion to correct error is not a prerequisite for appeal, except when a party seeks to address newly discovered material evidence, including alleged jury misconduct, capable of production within thirty days after the sentencing date which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered and produced at trial.
All other issues and grounds for appeal appropriately preserved during trial may be initially addressed in the appellate brief.
(B) Time for Filing.
A motion to correct error, if any, must be filed within thirty days after the date of sentencing, or the date of entry on the chronological case summary of an order of dismissal or an order of acquittal.(Emphasis added).
Ind. Trial Rule 59(C) provides "[t]he motion to correct error, if any, must be filed not later than thirty (30) days after the entry of a final judgment is noted in the Chronological Case Summary." We see no conflict between Criminal Rule 5.3 and Trial Rule 59(C). To the extent a conflict exists, Criminal Rule 5.3 governs. See Ind. Criminal Rule 1.1 ("The Indiana Rules of Court, as well as all statutes governing procedure and practice in trial courts, apply to all criminal proceedings unless they conflict with these rules.").
[¶11] It is undisputed that Biggs's motion to correct error alleges that jury misconduct occurred and that the alleged misconduct was discovered subsequent to the trial and jury verdict. The record reveals that the court sentenced Biggs on May 30, 2024, and that Biggs filed his motion to correct error on June 27, 2024. Based on Criminal Rule 5.3, and in light of the State's agreement, we conclude that Biggs's motion to correct error was timely filed. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a hearing on Biggs's motion to correct error at which the parties may present evidence.
[¶12] For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand for a hearing on Biggs's motion to correct error.
[¶13] Reversed and remanded.
Mathias, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.