Turner v. Sevier

227 N.E.3d 978

Spencer TURNER, Appellant-Petitioner,

v.Mark SEVIER, Appellee-Respondent.

Court of Appeals Case No. 23A-MI-1053

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Filed January 31, 2024

Appeal from the Henry Circuit Court, The Honorable Kit C. Dean Crane, Judge, Trial Court Cause No. 33C02-2211-MI-137

Appellant Pro Se: Spencer Turner, New Castle, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Natalie F. Weiss, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

Mathias, Judge.

[1] [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.

[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.

Standard of Review

[2–4] [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 ?. 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 ?. 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 ?. State, 162 N.E.3d 537, 540 (Ind.- Ct. App. 2020) (footnote omitted), trans. denied.

The post-conviction court erred when it granted the State’s motion for summary disposition of Turner’s petition.

[5, 6] [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

[7] [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 panel of this Court in Abron v. State, 141...