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.

FILED
Dec 27 2010, 9:21 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

APPELLANT PRO SE: JAMES F. GRIFFITH Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana JOBY D. JERRELLS Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JAMES F. GRIFFITH, Appellant-Petitioner, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 35A02-1006-PC-705

APPEAL FROM THE HUNTINGTON SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Jeffrey R. Heffelfinger, Judge Cause No. 35D01-1003-PC-00002

December 27, 2010 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BAILEY, Judge

Case Summary Pro-se Petitioner-Appellant James F. Griffith ("Griffith") appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which alleged that he was due credit time against his concurrent sentences for Receiving Stolen Property.1 We affirm. Facts and Procedural History On March 20, 2007, in the Huntington Superior Court, Griffith pled guilty to two counts of Receiving Stolen Property, as Class D felonies, for which he received concurrent sentences of one and one-half years. The concurrent sentences were to be served consecutive to Griffiths sentence in Cause Number 35C01-0608-FC00037. The chronological case summary contained the notation: "The defendant has zero actual jail credit days due to this cause running consecutive to Circuit Court case." (App. 3.) On June 1, 2007, Griffith filed a pro-se "Motion for Jail Time Credit," which the trial court treated as an untimely motion to correct error and summarily denied. (App. 5.) On June 25, 2007, Griffith filed a pro-se "Motion to Correct Erroneous Sentence," which was also summarily denied. (App. 70.) In 2009, Griffith filed a second pro-se Motion to Correct Erroneous Sentence, which the trial court declined to rule upon, because it considered the motion a "repetitive motion." (App. 71.) Griffith subsequently filed a pro-se "Motion to Run Sentences Concurrent," which was denied. (App. 71.) Thereafter, Griffith filed a variety of pro-se motions seeking alternative placement and requesting that the trial court "evaluate time served prior to sentencing order." (App. 71.) Denying Griffiths motions, the

1

Ind. Code

Download James F. Griffith v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law