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: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

JUSTIN C. WOODHOUSE GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Bunker Hill, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

NICOLE M. SCHUSTER

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana 

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

JUSTIN C. WOODHOUSE, )

)

Appellant-Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) No. 08A05-1111-PC-614

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Respondent. )

APPEAL FROM THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT

The Honorable Kurtis G. Fouts, Special Judge

Cause No. 08C01-1103-PC-2

August 8, 2012

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BARTEAU, Senior Judge
2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Justin Woodhouse appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for 

post-conviction relief.

We affirm.

ISSUE

Woodhouse presents two issues for our review, which we restate as one: whether 

the post-conviction court erred by denying Woodhouse’s petition.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In May 2000, Woodhouse pleaded guilty to one count of theft as a Class D felony 

pursuant to a plea agreement in the Carroll County Circuit Court. See Ind. Code § 35-43-

4-2 (1985). Woodhouse was sentenced to three years with all but six months suspended 

and was placed on probation for the remainder of the three-year sentence.

On July 19, 2002, a petition to revoke Woodhouse’s probation was filed. The 

petition was served on Woodhouse on July 29, 2002 while he was in the Newton County 

jail on unrelated charges. Woodhouse first appeared in court on the pending petition to 

revoke probation over seven years later on November 20, 2009. A second petition to 

revoke probation was filed on December 2, 2009. On June 11, 2010, a third petition to 

revoke Woodhouse’s probation was filed.

On August 13, 2010, Woodhouse admitted to violating the conditions of his 

probation as charged in the first and second petitions to revoke; no admission was made 

on the third petition to revoke. The trial court revoked two years of Woodhouse’s 

previously-suspended sentence, terminated his probation as unsuccessful, and gave him 
3

thirteen days of jail time credit. Woodhouse later sent a letter to the court requesting that 

the court grant him additional credit for the time he served prior to the disposition of his 

petitions to revoke. The court treated Woodhouse’s correspondence as a motion to 

modify/reconsider the court’s disposition, which it denied. 

On March 21, 2011, Woodhouse filed a petition for post-conviction relief. 

Following a hearing, the court denied his petition. It is from this denial that Woodhouse 

now appeals.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Woodhouse contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying his claims

that he was entitled to additional jail time credit for the time he was incarcerated while 

his probation violation was pending and that his right to a timely revocation hearing was 

violated.

A post-conviction petitioner has the burden of establishing the grounds for relief 

by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind. Post–Conviction Rule 1(5); West v. State, 938 

N.E.2d 305, 309 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. To the extent the post-conviction 

court has denied relief, the petitioner appeals from a negative judgment and faces the 

rigorous burden of showing that the evidence, as a whole, leads unerringly and 

unmistakably to a conclusion opposite that reached by the post-conviction court. Harris 

v. State, 762 N.E.2d 163, 166 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. A post-conviction 

court’s findings and judgment will be reversed only upon a showing of clear error—that 

which leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Kistler 

v. State, 936 N.E.2d 1258, 1261 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied.
4

Post-conviction proceedings provide defendants with the opportunity to raise 

issues that either were not available on direct appeal or were not known at the time of the 

original proceeding. State v. Hernandez, 910 N.E.2d 213, 216 (Ind. 2009). Thus, not all 

issues are available in a post-conviction proceeding, and post-conviction proceedings 

must be based on grounds enumerated in the post-conviction rules. Id.; See Ind. PostConviction Rule 1(1). Post-conviction proceedings neither provide a substitute for an 

appeal nor afford petitioner a “super-appeal.” Reed v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1189, 1194 (Ind. 

2006). 

Woodhouse’s claims are not properly raised in a petition for post-conviction relief. 

His claim that he should have received additional jail time credit toward his sentence for 

violating his probation is a claim that was known at the time of sentencing for his 

probation violation and was available for direct appeal. Further, his claim that his right to 

a timely revocation hearing was violated is not a proper claim for post-conviction

proceedings because it was known and available from the time of his first hearing in 

November 2009 and certainly at the time he was sentenced on his probation violations in 

August 2010. Therefore, these claims are not appropriate claims for post-conviction 

proceedings.

CONCLUSION

The court properly denied Woodhouse’s request for post-conviction relief.

Affirmed.

BAKER, J., and RILEY, J., concur.