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: STEPHEN TAYLOR New Castle, Indiana

FILED
Jun 23 2009, 9:05 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana ARTURO RODRIGUEZ II Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
STEPHEN TAYLOR, Appellant-Petitioner, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A02-0811-PC-1017

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable William Young, Judge Cause Nos. 49G20-0511-FC-187697, 49F20-0710-FD-214950

June 23, 2009 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MAY, Judge

Stephen Taylor appeals the denial of his motion for additional earned credit time. We reverse and remand. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Taylor is currently serving time in the New Castle Correctional Facility. On July 7, 2008, he filed, in the Marion Superior Court, a "Motion for Additional Earned Credit Time." (Appellant's App. at 27.) The motion alleged the following facts. Taylor

successfully completed a basic life skills educational program titled "40 Days of Purpose" on May 20, 2008. (Id.) On May 21, 2008, Taylor wrote to the superintendent of New Castle Correctional Facility and the Commissioner of the Department of Correction, requesting earned credit time for completing the program. Having received no response, on June 10, 2008, Taylor filed a written grievance addressed to the Executive Assistant. After receiving no response to his grievance, Taylor requested the necessary form to appeal to the next level of review within the DOC, but he was not given a form. Therefore, Taylor asked the court to award him up to six months credit for completing the program. The chronological case summary indicates the trial court

received a "progress report" from the DOC on August 18, 2008 and/or September 2, 2008. (Appellant's App. at 13.) On September 8, 2008, without a hearing, the trial court denied Taylor's motion. DISCUSSION AND DECISION The State argues Taylor's appeal should be dismissed because Taylor did not exhaust his administrative remedies, and therefore, the court lacked subject matter 2

jurisdiction to consider his motion. The trial court determines the initial credit time when an offender is sentenced. Members v. State, 851 N.E.2d 979, 982 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). When educational credit is earned after sentencing, the credit due the offender is determined by the DOC. Id. at 982-83. If educational credit is denied, the offender must exhaust administrative remedies with the DOC. Id. at 983. When administrative

remedies are exhausted, the offender may seek judicial review via a petition for postconviction relief.1 Young v. State, 888 N.E.2d 1255, 1256 (Ind. 2008). In Young, our Supreme Court addressed the showing an offender must make to be granted educational credit in a post-conviction proceeding: Here, for example, Young must show in the first place what the relevant DOC administrative grievance procedures are, and then that he has exhausted them at all levels. Young must also present evidence of his diploma and the credentials of the school that awarded it. He must show that he meets each requirement of any necessary statute (for example, I.C.

Download Stephen Taylor v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law