Court Opinion

ID: 9928369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 17:04:34.920561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:46:10.509465
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                       Jan 31 2024, 9:17 am

                                                                           CLERK
                                                                       Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                          Court of Appeals
                                                                            and Tax Court

APPELLANT PRO SE                                           ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Spencer Turner                                             Theodore E. Rokita
New Castle, Indiana                                        Attorney General of Indiana

                                                           Natalie F. Weiss
                                                           Deputy Attorney General
                                                           Indianapolis, Indiana

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Spencer Turner,                                            January 31, 2024
Appellant-Petitioner,                                      Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                           23A-MI-1053
        v.                                                 Appeal from the Henry Circuit
                                                           Court
Mark Sevier,                                               The Honorable Kit C. Dean Crane,
Appellee-Respondent.                                       Judge
                                                           Trial Court Cause No.
                                                           33C02-2211-MI-137

                                  Opinion by Judge Mathias
                                Judges Riley and Crone concur.

Mathias, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1053 | January 31, 2024                           Page 1 of 7
[1]   Spencer Turner appeals the post-conviction court’s grant of the State’s motion

      for summary disposition of Turner’s petition for post-conviction relief. 1 Turner

      raises three issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as whether

      the post-conviction court erred when it granted the State’s motion and denied

      Turner’s petition for post-conviction relief. We agree with Turner that he was

      incarcerated only on alleged parole violations and not also on new criminal

      allegations during the timeframe in question. Accordingly, we reverse the post-

      conviction court’s summary disposition and remand for further proceedings

      consistent with this opinion.

      Facts and Procedural History
[2]   In March 2020, Turner, an inmate at the Indiana Department of Correction’s

      New Castle Correctional Facility, was released to a two-year-term of parole

      after having executed a portion of his underlying sentence. One year later, the

      State alleged new criminal allegations against Turner in Marion County,

      including an allegation of Level 1 felony child molesting. The State filed its

      information on those new criminal allegations in April 2021, and they remain

      pending.

      1
        Turner styled his filing as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and, in one sentence in his brief on appeal,
      he suggests that the court erred when it converted his petition into a petition for post-conviction relief. One
      sentence is not an argument supported by cogent reasoning, and we therefore do not consider Turner’s
      purported challenge to the court’s assessment of his petition in this respect. See Ind. Appellate Rule
      46(A)(8)(a). Accordingly, we refer to the judgment on appeal as a judgment on a petition for post-conviction
      relief.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1053 | January 31, 2024                                   Page 2 of 7
[3]   In light of the new criminal allegations, Turner’s parole agent issued a parole

      violation warrant for Turner on March 19, 2021. Turner turned himself in on

      that warrant that same day, and he waived his right to a preliminary hearing

      before the Parole Board. Thereafter, no action was taken on his alleged parole

      violations, and Turner remained incarcerated without a hearing on those

      alleged violations. On December 9, 2022, the State served Turner with the

      warrant on the new criminal charges.

[4]   In late 2022, Turner filed his petition for post-conviction relief. In his petition,

      he alleged that he had been held in custody only on the alleged parole violations

      between March 19, 2021, and December 9, 2022, and that being held for that

      length of time without a hearing on the alleged parole violations was contrary

      to his statutory and constitutional rights. In response, the State filed a motion

      for the summary disposition of Turner’s petition on the ground that he had been

      held on both the alleged parole violations and the new criminal allegations

      during all relevant times, and, thus, the Parole Board had no statutory or

      constitutional obligation to act on the alleged parole violations while the new

      criminal allegations remained pending. The post-conviction court agreed with

      the State, granted the State’s motion for summary disposition, and denied

      Turner’s petition for post-conviction relief.

[5]   This appeal ensued.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1053 | January 31, 2024         Page 3 of 7
      Standard of Review
[6]   Turner appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-

      conviction relief. Our standard of review in such appeals is well-established:

              Post-conviction proceedings are civil proceedings in which a
              person may present limited challenges to a criminal conviction or
              a sentence. See Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1; Gibson v. State, 133
              N.E.3d 673, 681 (Ind. 2019), cert. denied. Generally, “[t]he scope
              of potential relief is limited to issues unknown at trial or
              unavailable on direct appeal.” Gibson, 133 N.E.3d at 681. In a
              post-conviction action, the petitioner “has the burden of
              establishing his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the
              evidence.” P-C.R. 1(5). If there are disputed factual issues, the
              trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing. P-C.R. 1(4)(g), 1(5).
              However, pursuant to Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g), the
              court “may grant a motion by either party for summary
              disposition of the petition when it appears from the [evidence]
              submitted . . . that there is no genuine issue of material fact and
              the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” On
              appeal, we review “the grant of a motion for summary
              disposition in post-conviction proceedings . . . the same way as a
              motion for summary judgment.” Norris v. State, 896 N.E.2d 1149,
              1151 (Ind. 2008). Indeed, “summary disposition, like summary
              judgment, is a matter for appellate de novo determination when
              the determinative issue is a matter of law, not fact.” Id.

      Aguilar v. State, 162 N.E.3d 537, 540 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (footnote omitted),

      trans. denied.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1053 | January 31, 2024          Page 4 of 7
      The post-conviction court erred when it granted the State’s
      motion for summary disposition of Turner’s petition.
[7]   On appeal, Turner asserts that, between March 19, 2021, and December 9,

      2022, he was incarcerated solely on the alleged parole violations. He further

      asserts that the length of that incarceration without a hearing on the alleged

      parole violations was contrary to his state and federal rights. 2

[8]   Essential to Turner’s argument is his contention that he was not formally held

      on the new criminal charges until he had been served with the warrant for those

      charges on December 9, 2022. On this point, Turner is correct. On March 19,

      2021, Turner’s parole agent issued a parole violation warrant against Turner,

      and Turner turned himself in that same day. From that day to December 9,

      2022, the day on which the State served Turner with the arrest warrant for the

      new criminal charges in Marion County, Turner was incarcerated only on the

      alleged parole violations.

[9]   Nonetheless, the State suggests that Turner was formally incarcerated on the

      new criminal charges starting from the date in which the Marion Superior

      Court found there to be probable cause for the filing of the new charges, i.e.,

      April 7, 2021. In support of that position, the State cites the opinion of another

      2
        The crux of Turner’s argument on appeal alleges due process violations, and his argument on that point is
      well taken. However, throughout his brief on appeal, Turner also references his right to equal protection, his
      right to bail, his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and his right to be free from double
      jeopardy. None of those references are arguments supported by cogent reasoning, and we therefore do not
      consider them. See App. R. 46(A)(8)(a). Similarly, Turner requests in his brief that he receive a preliminary
      injunction; Turner cannot request such relief for the first time on appeal, and we do not consider it.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1053 | January 31, 2024                                Page 5 of 7
       panel of this Court in Abron v. State, 141 N.E.3d 393 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans.

       denied. But nothing in Abron states that the filing of an information is equivalent

       to an arrest, and we decline to read that opinion as the State does.

[10]   Thus, Turner was incarcerated on alleged parole violations for approximately

       630 days without a parole revocation hearing. Such a detention was contrary to

       law. Indiana Code section 11-13-3-10(a)(1) (2020) required the Parole Board to

       hold Turner’s revocation hearing on the alleged parole violations within sixty

       days of him having surrendered himself on March 19, 2021, which the Parole

       Board did not do. Accordingly, the post-conviction court erred when it granted

       the State’s motion for summary disposition of Turner’s petition on the theory

       that he had been simultaneously held on both the alleged parole violations and

       the new criminal allegations during the timeframe in question.

[11]   Indiana Code section 11-13-3-10(e) provides that, “[u]nless good cause for the

       delay [in holding a revocation hearing] is established . . . , the parole revocation

       charge shall be dismissed if the revocation hearing is not held within the time

       established by subsection (a).” We therefore reverse the post-conviction court’s

       summary disposition of Turner’s petition and remand for the court to hold an

       evidentiary hearing to determine whether the State is able to show good cause

       for the delay in holding Turner’s revocation hearing under section 11-13-3-10(e)

       or whether Turner is entitled to have the alleged parole violations dismissed.

[12]   Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1053 | January 31, 2024        Page 6 of 7
Riley, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1053 | January 31, 2024   Page 7 of 7