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.

ATTORNEY S FOR APPELLANT : RUTH JOHNSON VICTORIA L. BAILEY Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana



## IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

DARRYL CRENSHAW and ) KRISEAN PORTER, ) ) Appellant s
- Petitioners , ) ) vs. ) No. 49A02

- 1210

- CR

- 859 ) STATE OF INDIANA , ) ) Appellee

- Respondent

. )

APP EAL F ROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Kimberly Brown , J udge Cau se N o s. 49G16

- 1001

- CM

- 571, 49G16

- 1108

- FD

- 56021

July 2, 2013

MEMORANDUM DECISION
- NOT FOR PUB LICATION

KIRSCH, Judge2



### In this consolidated appeal, Darryl Crenshaw and Krisean Porter ( together “Petitioners”) appeal the trial court’s denial of their petitions for restricted disclosure of arrest records, arguing it was error for the trial court to summarily deny the petitions without first making a specific finding that the petitions were insufficient. We affirm. After pending criminal charges against each of the Petitioners were dismissed on the State’s motion, Petitioners each timely filed a veri fied petition for restricted disclosure of arrest records pursuant to Indiana Code section 35

- 38

- 5

- 5.5. 1 

### Subsection (e) of that statute requires a petitioner to serve a copy of the petition on t he prosecuting attorney and the state central repository for records. Ind. Code § 35

- 38

- 5

- 5.5(e). The prosecuting attorney is permitted to file an opposition to the petition, but is not required to do so

. Ind. Code § 35

- 38

- 5

- 5.5(f). The re are three actions that a trial court may take on a petition; it may: (1) summarily grant the petition; (2) set it for hearing, or (3) summarily deny the petition if it
determines that either (a) the petition is insufficient , or (b) based on documentary evidence submitted by the prosecuting attorney, the petition er is not entitl ed to relief. Ind. Code § 35

- 38

- 5

- 5.5(f)(3). Here, Petitioners concede that they did not serve their respective petition s on the state central repository for records as required by subsection (e). Appellants’ Br . at 7. Consequently, their petitions fa iled to comply with Indiana Code section 35

- 38

- 5

- 5.5(e ). We reject Petitioners’ claim that Indiana Code section 35

- 38

- 5

- 5.5 requires a trial court to make a

1 We note this statute has been repealed by Public Law 159

- 2013 effective July 1 , 2013; however, as the trial court’s summary denial of the petitions occurred on October 1, 2012, such legislative action has no effect on the outcome of this case.3



### separate, express finding that a petition is insufficient before it may summarily dismiss it

. Pe titioners fail ed to serve the necessary parties , their petitions were thus insufficient, and the
trial court was within its author ity to summarily d eny them.
Affirmed. 2 

### VAIDIK, J., and PYLE, J., concur.

2 The State of Indiana through the Office of the Attorney General filed a motion to dis miss Petitioners’ appeal for failure to effectuate proper service , not only on the State Police central r epository pursuant to Indiana Code section 35

- 38

- 5

- 5.5(e) , but also the Attorney General’s office pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 4.6(A)(3), which requi res the Attorney General’s office to be served when a state agency, such as the State Police, is served. I n light of our decision today affirm ing the trial court’s summary denial of the petitions, we do not separately address the State’s motion

.