Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1469 | December 19, 2019 Page 1 of 5

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

Tony Walker

Carlisle, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Monika Prekopa Talbot

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Tony Walker,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

December 19, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-1469

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Grant Hawkins, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G05-0510-FA-182546

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1469 | December 19, 2019 Page 2 of 5

[1] Tony Walker, pro se, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for credit 

time. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On October 21, 2005, the State charged Walker with various offenses,

1

 on 

October 18, 2007, the trial court found him guilty. On October 22, 2007, 

Walker pled guilty to being an habitual offender. The court sentenced him to 

sixty years for Count I, thirty years for Count VIII, and four years for Count IX, 

and ordered that the sentence for Count I be served consecutive to Count VIII. 

The court enhanced Count I by thirty years due to his status as an habitual 

offender. 

[3] In a letter dated March 4, 2019, Walker wrote to the Classification Division of

the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility indicating that he completed the Plus 

Program on June 9, 2014, and was eligible to receive a time cut because he fell 

“under the old law and began the program before ap-01-04-101 went into 

effect.” Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 30. In a letter addressed to Walker 

dated April 16, 2019, K. Staton of the Classification Division wrote: “The time 

cut for ‘PLUS’ was denied. Part of your current incarceration includes a sex 

offense listed under IC 11-8-8-4.5, therefore, you are not eligible to receive 

1 The State notes that the record does not contain the charging information and that the chronological case 

summary is unclear about the nature of the charges. See Appellee’s Brief at 4 n.2.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1469 | December 19, 2019 Page 3 of 5

reformative program time cuts. Time cut decisions are not appealable, 

therefore your appeal is being returned to you.” Id. at 29. 

[4] On May 16, 2019, Walker filed a verified petition for credit time in the Marion 

Circuit Court alleging that he completed the Plus Program in June 2014 and the 

program allowed him to receive additional credit time pursuant to Life Skills 

Programs under Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3.3. The court denied the petition.

Discussion

[5] Walker appears to argue that the former credit restricted felon statute, Ind. 

Code § 35-41-1-5.5, did not apply to him because he was convicted in 2007, and 

that application of the statute would be an unconstitutional ex post facto 

violation. He also claims the trial court should have granted his request for 

credit time under Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3.3. He contends that he meets the 

statutory requirements for earning credit time under Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3 

because the PLUS Program is a program approved by the Department of 

Correction. The State acknowledges that Walker is correct that he is not a 

credit restricted felon, but argues that Walker has failed to show that he was in 

credit class I, A, or B as required by Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3.3(b)(1), that he has 

demonstrated a pattern consistent with rehabilitation, or that he completed the 

PLUS program.

[6] We observe that Walker is proceeding pro se. Such litigants are held to the same 

standard as trained counsel. Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2004), trans. denied. We treat Walker’s petition as one for relief under Ind. Post-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1469 | December 19, 2019 Page 4 of 5

Conviction Rule 1. See Stevens v. State, 895 N.E.2d 418, 419 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2008) (noting a request for credit time under Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3.3 is treated 

as a petition for relief under Post-Conviction Rule 1). Walker is appealing from 

a negative judgment and must convince this court the evidence leads unerringly 

and unmistakably to a decision opposite that reached by the trial court. See 

Sander v. State, 816 N.E.2d 75, 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

[7] Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3.3(b) provides:

(b) In addition to any educational credit that a person earns 

under subsection (a), or good time credit a person earns under 

section 3 or 3.1 of this chapter, a person may earn educational 

credit if, while confined by the department of correction, the 

person:

(1) is in credit Class I, Class A, or Class B;

(2) demonstrates a pattern consistent with rehabilitation; 

and

(3) successfully completes requirements to obtain at least 

one (1) of the following:

(A) A certificate of completion of a career and 

technical or vocational education program approved 

by the department of correction.

(B) A certificate of completion of a substance abuse 

program approved by the department of correction.

(C) A certificate of completion of a literacy and 

basic life skills program approved by the department 

of correction.

(D) A certificate of completion of a reformative 

program approved by the department of correction.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1469 | December 19, 2019 Page 5 of 5

[8] As observed by the State, Walker does not argue or point to the record to 

indicate that he met the other requirements of Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3.3(b). We 

cannot say that Walker has demonstrated that the evidence leads unerringly 

and unmistakably to a decision opposite that reached by the post-conviction

court. 

[9] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

[10] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Riley, J., concur.