Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A03-1701-CR-230 | November 15, 2017 Page 1 of 6

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

Mark S. Wright

Michigan City, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

James D. Boyer

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Mark S. Wright,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

November 15, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

46A03-1701-CR-230

Appeal from the LaPorte Superior 

Court

The Honorable Greta S. Friedman, 

Special Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

46D01-9806-CF-94

Mathias, Judge.

[1] Mark S. Wright (“Wright”) appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his 

motion for additional earned credit time. Because the post-conviction court 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A03-1701-CR-230 | November 15, 2017 Page 2 of 6

denied Wright’s motion for additional credit time without determining whether 

Wright had exhausted his administrative remedies, we reverse and remand with 

instructions.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Wright has been incarcerated in the Department of Correction (“DOC”) since 

1999. During his time in prison, Wright has taken advantage of numerous 

programs and courses offered, including earning educational credit time by

obtaining a bachelor’s degree from Ball State University in 2009. Recently, 

Wright completed the following programs for which he asserts he did not 

receive additional earned credit time: (1) Aramark In2Work Kitchen Basics 

101, (2) Aramark In2Work Retail Basics 101, (3) ServSafe Food Protection 

Manager Certification Program, (4) Thinking for a Change PLUS Program, 

and (5) the Anger/Stress PLUS Program. Appellant’s App. pp. 23–28. 

[3] On May 6, 2016, Wright filed a motion for earned credit time for completion of 

these programs with the post-conviction court. The post-conviction court

denied Wright’s motion on December 15, 2016, stating in relevant part: 

[Wright] has provided a plethora of documents in support of his 

Petition, but the documents do not answer the critical 

questions[:]

1. Did he receive a certificate of completion for a program set 

forth in IC 35-50-6-3.3 (b) (3) (A) through (D)?

2. If he did, has he already received credit for that program?
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A03-1701-CR-230 | November 15, 2017 Page 3 of 6

The answers to these questions can only be provided by proper 

documentation from the Department of Correction, and the 

documentation heretofore provided does not support the

Petition. [Wright] may refile with appropriate documents if he 

chooses.

Id. at 11. 

[4] Based on the post-conviction court’s response, Wright filed a motion to correct 

error1 on January 4, 2017. As part of his motion to correct error, Wright 

attached documentation that he believed satisfied the post-conviction court’s 

requests. On January 11, the post-conviction court denied Wright’s motion. 

Wright now appeals

Discussion and Decision

[5] Wright argues that the post-conviction court erred by denying his petition for 

earned credit time not previously awarded by the DOC. Specifically, he 

contends that the post-conviction court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear 

his petition,

2 and that the post-conviction court erred when it denied his motion 

for additional earned credit time and his subsequent motion to correct error. 

 

1 Although Wright labeled this document as a motion to reconsider, and despite their similarity, “a motion 

requesting the court to revisit its final judgment must be considered a motion to correct error.” Hubbard v. 

Hubbard, 690 N.E.2d 1219, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). 

2 Wright relies on our decision in Stevens v. State, 895 N.E.2d 418 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), to support his claim 

that the post-conviction court here had proper jurisdiction over his case. Wright appears to be conflating 

jurisdiction with the exhaustion of administrative remedies. We note that the exhaustion of administrative 

remedies is a question of procedural error, and not subject matter jurisdiction. Alkhalidi v. Indiana Dep’t. of 

Correction, 42 N.E.3d 562, 565 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A03-1701-CR-230 | November 15, 2017 Page 4 of 6

The State counters that Wright’s appeal should be dismissed because he has 

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.3In the alternative, the State 

contends that Wright failed to provide proper documentation to the postconviction court to support his claim. 

[6] Generally, the trial court determines the amount of initial credit time a 

defendant is entitled to at sentencing, and thereafter the credit due is 

determined by the DOC. Ellis v. State, 58 N.E.3d 938, 941 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), 

trans. denied. “The DOC is required to implement a departmental grievance 

procedure in which a committed person may submit grievances arising out of 

administrative acts that affect that person, including claims that the DOC 

wrongfully denied education credit time.” Id. (internal citations omitted). 

“When educational credit time is denied, a person must exhaust his 

administrative remedies within the DOC before appealing to a court because 

determinations altering credit time are the responsibility of the DOC.” Stevens v. 

State, 895 N.E.2d 418, 419 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Wright bears the burden to 

show what the relevant DOC procedures are, and that he has exhausted 

them. Burks-Bey v. State, 903 N.E.2d 1041, 1043–44 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). 

 

3 The State also argues “that Wright’s appeal should be dismissed because his motion in this case is an 

unapproved successive petition for post-conviction relief.” Appellee’s Br. at 8. However, on June 23, 2017, 

this court’s motions panel dismissed a motion by the State on the same argument. It is well established that 

we may reconsider a ruling of our motions panel, but we decline to do so here. State v. Sagalovsky, 836 N.E.2d 

260, 264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A03-1701-CR-230 | November 15, 2017 Page 5 of 6

[7] Here, the post-conviction court did not deny Wright’s petition for earned credit 

time based on a finding that Wright failed to show he had exhausted his 

administrative remedies with the DOC. Instead, the post-conviction court 

denied Wright’s motion because the petition had failed to answer two critical 

questions: (1) whether Wright received the certificates for a program in 

accordance with Indiana Code section 35-50-6-3.3, and (2) if he did, whether 

Wright had already received credit for those programs. Appellant’s App. p. 11. 

The post-conviction court then explained that “[t]he answers to these questions 

can only be provided by proper documentation from the Department of 

Correction, and the documentation heretofore provided does not support the 

petition. [Wright] may refile with appropriate documents if he chooses.” Id.

After Wright attached the documents4the post-conviction court had requested 

as part of his motion to correct error, the trial court denied it without stating 

that Wright had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

[8] We find that the post-conviction court erred when it denied Wright’s initial 

petition for credit time and his subsequent motion to correct error without first 

considering whether he had exhausted his administrative remedies. See Ellis, 58 

N.E.3d at 941 (reversing post-conviction court’s denial of Ellis’s petition for 

credit time where the court denied Ellis’s motion without first considering 

 

4 Wright attached an “Offender Information System” print-out notarized by DOC staff which shows the 

programs he has received credit for and those he has not. The document shows that Wright has not been 

given credit for the five programs at issue in this appeal. Appellant’s App. pp. 34–35. Wright also attached 

five documents of the actual completed programs for which he is seeking additional earned credit time for. Id.

at 23–28. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A03-1701-CR-230 | November 15, 2017 Page 6 of 6

whether Ellis had exhausted his administrative remedies), trans. denied; BurksBey, 903 N.E.2d at 1043–44 (reversing post-conviction court’s dismissal or 

Burks-Bey’s motion for additional credit time because the court failed to 

determine whether Burks-Bey had exhausted his administrative remedies). 

Therefore, we reverse the post-conviction court’s denial of Wright’s petition for 

earned credit time and remand to allow the DOC to respond to Wright’s 

claims, and for the post-conviction court to determine whether Wright has 

exhausted his administrative remedies.

[9] If Wright establishes that he has exhausted his administrative remedies, then 

the post-conviction court should reconsider the merits of his motion for 

additional credit time. If Wright fails to establish that he has exhausted his 

administrative remedies, then the post-conviction court may dismiss the 

petition without prejudice. 

[10] Reversed and remanded.

Vaidik, C.J., and Crone, J., concur.