AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant, acting pro se, sought to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to amend the judgment and sentence, claiming he was not given full presentence confinement credit.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court failed to grant him full presentence confinement credit and sought to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to amend the judgment and sentence. The Defendant also contended that the district court clerk wrongfully refused to file his notice of appeal, which led to the non-filing of his notice of appeal in the district court (paras 1, 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Court of Appeals should accept the Defendant's notice of appeal filed in this Court, despite it not being filed in the district court as required.
• Whether court error caused the non-filing of the Defendant's notice of appeal in the district court.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the Defendant's appeal due to the failure to file a timely notice of appeal in the district court.

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Cynthia A. Fry and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, the Court decided to dismiss the Defendant's appeal. The Court explained that to invoke its jurisdiction, a party must comply with appellate rules governing the time and place to file the notice of appeal. The Defendant did not file a timely notice of appeal in the district court but instead filed it with the Court of Appeals, which does not comply with the required procedural rules. The Court also noted that the presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel does not extend to pro se defendants and that only in exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the parties will the Court entertain an untimely appeal. The Defendant argued that court error (specifically, the district court clerk's wrongful refusal to file his notice of appeal) caused the non-filing of his notice of appeal. However, the Court found that the Defendant did not make a prima facie showing that court error may have caused the non-filing of the notice of appeal sufficient to warrant remand to district court for findings on the matter. The Court also noted that the Defendant did not oppose the Court's recommendation that he pursue habeas relief and asked the Court to dismiss his appeal with a recommendation that he seek relief in district court in a conforming petition for writ of habeas corpus (paras 1-5).