Sign Up for Vincent AI
McIntyre v. State
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 FOR APPELLANT:
MARK SMALL
GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Attorney General of Indiana
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
APPEAL FROM THE GREENE CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Erik C. Allen, Judge
The appellant in this case, Steven McIntyre, is appealing the post-conviction court's grant of the State's motion to correct error regarding McIntyre's request for credit time stemming from his completion of a high school diploma from Cornerstone Christian Correspondence School (Cornerstone), while he was incarcerated in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). Because it was established that Cornerstone's standards of instruction are not substantially similar to those in Indiana, McIntyre is not entitled to credit time. Thus, we affirm the post-conviction relief court's judgment in granting the State's motion to correct error and deny McIntyre's request for relief.
McIntyre is currently incarcerated at the Putnamville Correctional Facility (Putnamville) serving a ten-year sentence for robbery,1 a class B felony, with an earliest possible release date of February 5, 2014.
On October 26, 2011, McIntyre filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, seeking educational credit time for a high school diploma that he earned from Cornerstone. Included in McIntyre's documentation was a response from the DOC, explaining that it did "not recognize Cornerstone as an accredited school; therefore, there can not (sic) be any reduction in credit time awarded by the Indiana Department of Correction." Id. at 18.
On January 25, 2012, McIntyre, by counsel, filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief, claiming in part that:
On February 8, 2012, the State indicated that it did not object to McIntyre's request for relief. Thus, McIntyre's petition for post-conviction relief was granted. Thereafter, the State filed a motion to correct error, stating in part that:
Appellant's App. p. 62-63. Thereafter, the post-conviction court granted the State's motion to correct error and denied McIntyre's request for relief. It was determined that McIntyre now appeals.
We initially observe that a trial court has wide discretion when ruling on a motion to correct error. Dughaish v. Cobb, 729 N.E.2d 159, 167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). We have observed that only when a trial court has abused its discretion will we reverse a decision. Id. "An abuse of discretion will be found when the trial court's action is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it and the inferences which may be drawn therefrom" or the trial court's decision "is without reason or is based upon impermissible reasons or considerations." Id.
Moreover, we note that the post-conviction court treated McIntyre's request for credit time as a petition for post-conviction relief which may be decided by summary disposition on the pleadings. Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 4(f) and 9(g); Diaz v. State, 753 N.E.2d 724, 727 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). The standard for reviewing a grant of summaryjudgment is well established. The plaintiff in the case must demonstrate that the trial court erroneously determined that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Voit v. Allen Cnty., 634 N.E.2d 767, 768 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). In Young v. State, 888 N.E.2d 1255, 1256 (Ind. 2008), our Supreme Court approved post-conviction proceedings brought to address credit time questions.
In addressing McIntyre's contentions that he should have been afforded credit time for earning a high school diploma at Cornerstone, we note that Indiana Code Section 35-50-6-3.3 provides a framework for awarding credit time to offenders based on completion of specific programs and maintaining certain requirements. The statute authorizes specific awards of credit time when: 1) the offender is in credit Class I; 2) the offender has demonstrated a pattern consistent with rehabilitation; and 3) the offender successfully completes requirements to obtain one of a number of educational awards. Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3.3(a) and (b).
In this case, McIntyre did not prove that he was in Credit Class I or that he had demonstrated a pattern of behavior consistent with rehabilitation. Also, while McIntyre asserted that his high school diploma from Cornerstone qualified as a high school diploma under Indiana Code section 35-50-6-3.3(a), it does not.
Id. We then noted that "t...
Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI
Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting