Preview:

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: ANTHONY BUSH Westville, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEPHEN R. CARTER Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana RYAN D. JOHANNINGSMEIER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
ANTHONY BUSH, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A04-0604-PC-174

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge Cause No. 49G06-0311-FC-192000

SEPTEMBER 8, 2006 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BARTEAU, Senior Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Defendant-Appellant Anthony Bush appeals the denial of his petition for postconviction relief. We affirm. ISSUE Bush presents two issues, which we restate and consolidate into one: whether the post-conviction court erred by denying Bush's motion for educational credit time. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 6, 2004, Bush pleaded guilty to robbery as a Class C felony. He was sentenced to five years to be served in the community correction program. Following a hearing in April 2004, the court found that Bush had violated the conditions of the community correction program and ordered Bush committed to the Department of Correction. Bush apparently filed a motion for educational credit time on December 12, 2005, which the court denied on January 24, 2006. 1 It is from this denial that Bush now appeals. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Bush contends that the post-conviction court improperly denied his motion for educational credit time. Upon review of a denial of post-conviction relief, this Court neither weighs the evidence nor determines the credibility of the witnesses. Stewart v.

1

Although Appellant's Appendix contains a file-stamped copy of Bush's Motion for Credit for Completion of Educational Program, the CCS does not reflect this filing. See Appellant's App. at 31-32 and 11-12. However, the CCS does show that the request was denied by the court on January 24, 2006. See Appellant's App. at 12.

2

State, 517 N.E.2d 1230, 1231 (Ind. 1988). 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), reh'g denied, trans. denied. Thus, we will not set aside the post-conviction court's ruling unless the evidence is without conflict and leads solely to a result different from that reached by the post-conviction court. Stewart, 517 N.E.2d at 1231. In making this determination, we consider only the evidence that supports the decision of the post-conviction court together with any reasonable inferences. McCullough v. State, 672 N.E.2d 445, 447 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. Moreover, although we do not defer to the post-conviction court's legal

conclusions, we do accept its factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Stevens v. State, 770 N.E.2d 739, 746 (Ind. 2002), reh'g denied, cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 69, 157 L.Ed.2d 56 (2003). In summary, "the defendant must convince this Court that there is no way within the law that the court below could have reached the decision it did." Id. at 745. In the present case, Bush alleges that he is entitled to credit time for completing an educational program called "Thinking for a Change." Bush refers to the program as a substance abuse program. By statute, successful completion of certain programs earns inmates credit time toward their sentence. Ind. Code

Download Anthony Bush v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law