Pyle, J.
….
1. Belated Notice of Appeal
….
The State contends that, under Post-Conviction Rule 2(1), the trial court was required to issue specific findings regarding whether Amphonephong was at fault for failing to file a timely notice of appeal and whether he was diligent in requesting permission to file a belated notice of appeal. The State asserts that the trial court erred because it did not make such express findings and that its failure to do so requires our Court to remand to the trial court for a hearing on Amphonephong’s petition. In so arguing, it relies on N.L. v. State, 989 N.E.2d 773, 780 (Ind. 2013).
….
Unlike [N.L.], here, we are dealing with the Post-Conviction Rule pertaining to whether to allow a defendant to file a belated notice of appeal, and this Rule does not contain any language that could be construed as a mandate that a trial court must enter an express finding on the defendant’s fault or diligence. Furthermore, Rule 2(1) does not require the trial court to hold a hearing on a defendant’s petition for permission to file a belated notice of appeal. See Green v. State, 593 N.E.2d 1237, 1238 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (explaining that Post-Conviction Rule 2(1) “does not require the court to conduct a hearing, but [that] we have determined that one should be held where the petition raises a genuine factual dispute concerning the existence of grounds for relief”), trans. denied.
….
… Accordingly, we reject the State’s invitation to dismiss this appeal and instead consider Amphonephong’s appeal on its merits.
….
Affirmed.
Barnes, J., and May, J., concur.