Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1604-CR-835 | October 18, 2016 Page 1 of 13

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE

Bennie Truth

New Castle, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Caryn N. Szyper

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Bennie Truth,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

October 18, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

33A01-1604-CR-835

Appeal from the Henry Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Barbara A. 

Harcourt, Senior Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

33C02-1512-PC-11

Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1604-CR-835 | October 18, 2016 Page 2 of 13

Case Summary and Issues

[1] Bennie Truth filed a petition for post-conviction relief challenging the 

revocation of his parole. The post-conviction court granted the State’s motion 

for summary disposition and denied Truth’s petition. Truth, pro se, now

appeals, raising two issues for our review, which we restate as (1) whether the 

post-conviction court abused its discretion in denying Truth’s motion for default 

judgment, and (2) whether the post-conviction court erred in granting the 

State’s motion for summary disposition. Concluding the post-conviction court 

did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion nor did it err in granting the 

State’s motion for summary disposition and denying Truth’s petition for postconviction relief, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Following a conviction for felony rape in the 1990s, Truth served time in the 

Indiana Department of Correction. Truth was released to parole in 2013. 

Among the conditions of his release were that he report to Sex Offender 

Management and Monitoring treatment (Rule 10-1), report to his parole office 

(Rule 10-10), charge his GPS monitoring unit (Rule 10-27), receive permission 

from his parole office prior to changing his residence (Rule 10-2), abstain from 

visiting a bar (Rule 10-13), and abstain from engaging in criminal conduct (Rule 

7).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1604-CR-835 | October 18, 2016 Page 3 of 13

[3] On October 15, 2013, a parole violation warrant was issued for Truth based on 

allegations he violated Rules 10-1, 10-2, 10-10, and 10-27 of his parole. On 

October 28, 2013, the State charged Truth with three counts of failing to register 

as a sex offender, all Class D felonies, under Cause Number 49F09-1310-FD070066 (“Cause 070066”). On November 1, 2013, Truth was found inside a bar 

and was arrested on the parole violation warrant. 

[4] At a parole hearing three days later, the State further alleged Truth violated 

Rule 10-13 by visiting a bar. Truth pleaded not guilty to the allegations he 

violated parole and the trial court scheduled a preliminary hearing for 

November 7, 2013. On November 5, 2013, an arrest warrant was issued for 

Truth under Cause 070066. He was then arrested and remained in the custody 

of the Marion County Jail.

1

 Following the preliminary hearing on November 7,

2013, the hearing officer found probable cause to believe Truth violated the 

terms of his parole as charged. Nearly two weeks later, parole services issued 

an addendum further alleging Truth engaged in criminal conduct in violation of 

Rule 7 by failing to register as a sex offender. Truth was not afforded a 

preliminary hearing with regard to this allegation.

[5] On April 22, 2014, the trial court entered judgment of conviction against Truth 

for failing to register as a sex offender and sentenced him to 1,095 days of work 

release. On June 4, 2014, Truth received notice his parole revocation hearing 

 

1 The record does not indicate whether Truth was still in custody on the parole violation warrant or whether 

he had been released and then arrested under CN-070066. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1604-CR-835 | October 18, 2016 Page 4 of 13

scheduled for June 12, 2014, would address the allegations he violated Rules 

10-1, 10-2, 10-10, 10-13, 10-27, and 7. Following the hearing, the parole board 

determined Truth violated Rules 10-2, 10-10, 10-27, and 7, revoked his parole, 

and ordered him to return to the Department of Correction. Truth began 

serving his sentence at the New Castle Correctional Facility in Henry County, 

Indiana.

[6] On December 22, 2015, Truth filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Truth 

then moved for summary judgment on January 19, 2016. On January 26, 2016, 

the State filed its answer to Truth’s petition and a motion for extension of time 

to file a summary judgment response. On February 2, 2016, the post-conviction 

court granted the State’s motion for extension of time and acknowledged the 

State had not originally been served with Truth’s petition. As a result, the postconviction court ordered the trial court clerk to forward a copy of the petition to 

the Office of the Attorney General and ordered the Attorney General to file a 

response within fifteen days. 

[7] On February 17, 2016, the State filed a motion for summary disposition and

Truth moved for default judgment the following day. On March 2, 2016, the 

post-conviction court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law granting 

the State’s motion for summary disposition and denying Truth’s petition for 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1604-CR-835 | October 18, 2016 Page 5 of 13

post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court did not rule on Truth’s motion 

for default judgment.2 This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

I. Default Judgment

[8] Truth claims the post-conviction court abused its discretion in denying his 

motion for default judgment.3 The decision to deny a default judgment is 

within the discretion of the post-conviction court and is reviewable only for 

abuse of that discretion. Kindred v. State, 514 N.E.2d 314, 317 (Ind. Ct. App. 

1987), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly 

against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or 

the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. 

Southern v. State, 878 N.E.2d 315, 323 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. 

[9] Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(2) provides, in relevant part,

 

2 Truth then filed a motion to correct error, arguing the State did not file a timely answer to his petition. In 

denying the motion, the post-conviction court noted, 

Petitioner incorrectly served the Henry County Prosecuting Attorney, but not the prosecuting 

attorney from the sentencing court nor the Attorney General. On February 5, 2016, the Court 

ordered the Clerk to forward a copy of the Petition to the Attorney General and ordered the 

Attorney General to file a response within fifteen days. Respondent’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition was filed [sic] stamped on February 17, 2016. Respondent responded timely to 

Petitioner’s Petition for Post-Conviction.

Appellant’s Appendix at 73.

3 At the outset, we note the post-conviction court never ruled on the motion. Because the post-conviction 

court summarily denied Truth’s petition for post-conviction relief, we proceed under the assumption the 

court impliedly denied Truth’s motion for default judgment. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1604-CR-835 | October 18, 2016 Page 6 of 13

A person who claims relief under this Rule or who otherwise 

challenges the validity of a conviction or sentence must file a 

verified petition with the clerk of the court in which the 

conviction took place, except that a person who claims that the 

person’s parole has been unlawfully revoked must file a verified 

petition with the clerk of the court in the county in which the 

person is incarcerated. . . .

The Clerk shall file the petition upon its receipt and deliver a 

copy to the prosecuting attorney of that judicial circuit.

Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(a) provides, in relevant part,

Within thirty (30) days after the filing of the petition, or within 

any further reasonable time the court may fix, the state . . . shall 

respond by answer stating the reasons, if any, why the relief 

prayed for should not be granted. The court may make 

appropriate orders for amendment of the petition or answer, for 

filing further pleadings or motions, or for extending the time of 

the filing of any pleading.

[10] Here, Truth filed his petition for post-conviction relief on December 22, 2015. 

The petition is not included in the record and the Chronological Case Summary 

(“CCS”) does not indicate whether a copy of the petition was forwarded to any 

representative of the State. On January 19, 2016, Truth moved for summary 

judgment. A week later, and just over thirty days after Truth filed his petition

for post-conviction relief, the prosecuting attorney for Henry County entered an 

appearance on behalf of the State, filed an answer to Truth’s petition, and 

further filed a motion for enlargement of time to respond to Truth’s motion for 

summary judgment. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1604-CR-835 | October 18, 2016 Page 7 of 13

[11] On February 2, 2016, the post-conviction court granted the State’s request for 

an extension of time and further noted,

Pro se petitioner filed Petition for Post-Conviction on December 

22, 2015. It appears he served the local county prosecutor and 

not the prosecuting attorney from the sentencing court, nor the 

Attorney General. It further appears that Petitioner is alleging 

that his parole was unlawfully revoked. Thus, it appears that this 

Court has jurisdiction over his Petition. Court orders the Clerk 

to forward a copy of the petition herein to the Office of the 

Indiana Attorney General . . . and directs that Attorney General 

shall file a response to the pleading within fifteen days.

Id. at 2 (CCS). The following day, the trial court clerk sent a copy of Truth’s 

petition to the Office of the Attorney General. On February 17, 2016, the State 

filed a motion for summary disposition. On February 18, 2016, Truth filed a 

motion for default judgment, claiming the State did not file an answer to his 

petition until January 26, 2016, and was therefore not within the thirty-day 

timeframe set out in Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(a). The post-conviction court 

did not rule on the motion and denied Truth’s petition for post-conviction relief 

by summary disposition on March 2, 2016.

[12] On appeal, the State concedes its answer filed on January 26, 2016, was oneday late and therefore untimely. Brief of Appellee at 19. However, we note the 

petition for post-conviction relief is not included in the record. In addition, the 

State’s answer was only one-day late. As noted above, a post-conviction court 

is afforded discretion in determining whether to deny a motion for default 

judgment. Here, the trial court exercised its discretion and decided the case on 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1604-CR-835 | October 18, 2016 Page 8 of 13

the merits. On this record, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Truth’s motion for default judgment.

II. Parole Revocation

A. Standard of Review

[13] We review the grant of a motion for summary disposition in post-conviction 

proceedings on appeal in the same way as a civil motion for summary 

judgment. Norris v. State, 896 N.E.2d 1149, 1151 (Ind. 2008). Summary 

disposition, like summary judgment, is a matter for appellate de novo review 

when the determinative issue is a matter of law, not fact. Id. Summary 

disposition should be granted only if “there is no genuine issue of material fact 

and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” P-C.R. 

1(4)(g). “We must resolve all doubts about facts, and the inferences to be 

drawn from the facts, in the non-movant’s favor.” Allen v. State, 791 N.E.2d 

748, 753 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied.

B. Preliminary Hearing 

[14] Truth first argues the post-conviction court erred in granting the summary 

disposition and denying his petition because the pleadings show he did not 

receive a preliminary hearing regarding the allegation he engaged in criminal 

conduct in violation of Rule 7 of his parole. We disagree.

[15] Upon the arrest and confinement of a parolee for an alleged 

violation of a condition to remaining on parole, an employee of 

the department (other than the employee who reported or 

investigated the alleged violation or who recommended 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1604-CR-835 | October 18, 2016 Page 9 of 13

revocation) shall hold a preliminary hearing to determine 

whether there is probable cause to believe a violation of a 

condition has occurred.

Ind. Code § 11-13-3-9(a). The purpose of a preliminary hearing is “to 

determine whether there is probable cause or reasonable ground to believe that 

the arrested parolee has committed acts that would constitute a violation of 

parole conditions.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 485 (1972). If the alleged 

violation of parole is the parolee’s conviction of a crime while on parole, 

however, the preliminary hearing need not be held. Ind. Code § 11-13-3-9(d); 

see also Jamerson v. State, 182 Ind. App. 99, 102, 394 N.E.2d 222, 224 (1979) 

(referencing Morrissey and reasoning the criminal prosecution itself is sufficient 

to determine whether there is probable cause to believe an act violates a 

condition of parole and therefore it is unnecessary to have a preliminary 

hearing).

[16] Here, it was not originally alleged Truth violated Rule 7; rather, it was alleged 

he violated Rules 10-1, 10-2, 10-10, 10-13, and 10-27. Pursuant to Indiana 

Code section 11-13-3-9, Truth was entitled to, and received, a preliminary 

hearing with regard to those allegations. Following the hearing, the hearing 

officer found probable cause existed to believe Truth violated the terms of his 

parole. After the State charged Truth with failing to register as a sex offender, 

however, parole services issued an addendum alleging Truth violated Rule 7 by 

engaging in criminal conduct. In April 2014, Truth was convicted of failing to 

register as a sex offender and such a conviction establishes sufficient probable 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1604-CR-835 | October 18, 2016 Page 10 of 13

cause to believe Truth violated Rule 7. See Jamerson, 182 Ind. App. at 102, 394 

N.E.2d at 224. Therefore, Truth was not entitled to a preliminary hearing on 

this allegation.

[17] We further note, even assuming error, Truth received notice his revocation 

hearing would address the allegations he violated the terms of his parole, 

including the allegation he violated Rule 7. The parole board concluded Truth 

violated Rules 10-2, 10-10, 10-27, and 7. Truth did not argue in the postconviction court the evidence is insufficient to establish he violated any of these 

rules, and even if we omit the finding he violated Rule 7, the fact he violated 

three other rules supports the revocation of his parole. See Komyatti v. State, 931 

N.E.2d 411, 419-21 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (affirming the revocation of parole in 

part because the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant violated one 

condition of his parole). Therefore, assuming error, Truth suffered no 

prejudice. We conclude the post-conviction court did not err in concluding

there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Truth was entitled to a 

preliminary hearing with regard to the allegation he engaged in criminal 

conduct. Accordingly, the post-conviction court did not err in denying Truth’s 

petition on this basis by summary disposition.

C. Parole Revocation Hearing

[18] Truth also contends the post-conviction court erred in granting the summary 

disposition because his parole revocation hearing was not held within sixty days 

of his November 2013 arrest on the parole violation warrant in violation of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1604-CR-835 | October 18, 2016 Page 11 of 13

Indiana Code section 11-13-3-10(a)(1). Indiana Code section 11-13-3-10

provides,

(a) Parole revocation hearings shall be conducted as follows:

(1) A parolee who is confined due to an alleged violation 

of parole shall be afforded a parole revocation hearing 

within sixty (60) days after the parolee is made available to 

the department by a jail or state correctional facility, if:

(A) there has been a final determination of any 

criminal charges against the parolee; or

(B) there has been a final resolution of any other 

detainers filed by any other jurisdiction against the 

parolee.

* * *

(e) Unless good cause for the delay is established in the record of 

the proceeding, the parole revocation charge shall be dismissed if 

the revocation hearing is not held within the time established by 

subsection (a).

[19] Here, a parole violation warrant was issued on October 15, 2013, and Truth 

was arrested on the warrant on November 1, 2013. The record does not 

indicate how long Truth was confined on the parole violation warrant. The 

record does indicate, however, that four days later—on November 5, 2013—an 

arrest warrant for Truth was issued under Cause 070066 and he was detained in 

the Marion County Jail under Cause 070066 until April 22, 2014. To be clear,

Truth remained in custody because he was charged with failure to register as a 

sex offender, not because it was alleged he violated parole. Thus, we are not 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1604-CR-835 | October 18, 2016 Page 12 of 13

persuaded Truth was “confined due to an alleged violation of parole” pursuant 

to Indiana Code section 11-13-3-10(a)(1).4

[20] However, even assuming he was confined due to an alleged violation of parole, 

the final determination in Cause 070066 did not occur until April 22, 2014.

5

 On 

the same day, Truth was ordered to return to the Department of Correction.

Therefore, parole services had sixty days from that date to afford Truth with a 

parole revocation hearing. On June 12, 2014, just over fifty days later, a parole 

revocation hearing was held. We conclude the parole revocation hearing was 

timely and therefore the post-conviction court did not err in denying Truth’s 

petition by summary disposition on this basis.

Conclusion

[21] The post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion in denying Truth’s 

motion for default judgment. In addition, the court did not err in concluding 

Truth was not entitled to a preliminary hearing in regards to the allegation he 

violated Rule 7 nor did it err in concluding his parole revocation hearing was 

timely. Accordingly, the post-conviction court properly denied Truth’s petition 

 

4

Indiana Code section 11-13-3-10(a)(2) governs the timing for parole revocation hearings for parolees who

are not confined due to an alleged parole violation. Truth does not allege his parole revocation hearing was 

untimely pursuant to this section of the statute and we therefore do not address it. 

5 Truth does not cite to any evidence in the record, and we find none, indicating a final resolution of any 

other detainers filed by any other jurisdiction against him occurred prior to the trial court entering judgment 

of conviction and remanding him to the Department of Correction. See Ind. Code § 11-13-3-10(a)(1)(B).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1604-CR-835 | October 18, 2016 Page 13 of 13

by summary disposition and we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction 

court. 

[22] Affirmed.

Mathias, J., and Brown, J., concur.