Opinion
24A-CR-1218
11-26-2024
Michael Lee Green, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
APPELLANT PRO SE Michael Lee Green Indiana State Prison -Minimum Security ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Frances Barrow Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Vigo Superior Court The Honorable Charles D. Johnson, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 84D01-1907-F2-002504.
APPELLANT PRO SE Michael Lee Green Indiana State Prison -Minimum Security
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Frances Barrow Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Felix, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[¶1] After Michael Green successfully completed a substance abuse treatment program while incarcerated, he twice petitioned the trial court for an award of credit time, claiming the Indiana Department of Correction ("DOC") had failed to award him the same. The trial court denied both of Green's requests. Green now appeals the second denial, raising one issue for our review: Whether the trial court erred by denying his petition for an award of educational credit time.
[¶2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶3] In February 2020, Green pled guilty to dealing in methamphetamine as a Level 2 felony and admitted he was a habitual offender. The trial court sentenced Green to a total of 20 years executed at the DOC, with 4 of those years suspended to probation.
[¶4] In December 2022, Green successfully completed a substance abuse treatment program. On September 19, 2023, Green filed a motion for additional jail-time credit, arguing that he was entitled to six months of jail-time credit for his successful completion of the substance abuse treatment program. Green further alleged in this motion that he had exhausted all the relevant DOC grievance procedures to obtain the appropriate jail-time credit. In particular, Green stated the Offender Grievance Process was "inappropriate" for jail-time credit issues and that he had used the "Classification Decision Appeal Process . . . to full exhaustion." Appellee's App. Vol. II at 10. On October 2, 2023, the trial court denied Green's motion. Months after the deadline to initiate an appeal, in February 2024, Green sought permission to belatedly appeal this denial; the request was denied.
[¶5] On April 30, 2024, Green filed a petition pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 53.4(A) for an award of educational credit time, arguing that he was entitled to six months of educational credit time for the successful completion of the same substance abuse treatment program that was a part of his earlier request for jailtime credit. On May 1, the trial court denied Green's petition. Now, Green timely appeals the denial of his repetitive motion.
Trial Rule 53.4(A) states that a trial court is not required to hold a hearing on a repetitive motion and that such a motion will neither delay proceedings nor extend deadlines.
Discussion and Decision
Green's Petition for an Award of Educational Credit Time is an Unauthorized Successive Petition for Post-Conviction Relief
[¶6] Green argues that the trial court erred by denying his petition for an award of educational credit time. Green's claim must be addressed via post-conviction proceedings. See Young v. State, 888 N.E.2d 1255, 1256 (Ind. 2008); Clear v. State, 232 N.E.3d 1186, 1188 (Ind.Ct.App. 2024) (citing Wilson v. State, 785 N.E.2d 1152, 1153 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003)), reh'g denied (June 28, 2024), trans. denied, 241 N.E.3d 1120 (Ind. 2024). To present such a claim properly, the petitioner "must follow the Indiana Rules of Procedure for Post-Conviction Remedies." Young, 888 N.E.2d at 1256-57. If a petitioner has previously sought post-conviction relief, "that petitioner must follow the procedure outlined in [Post-Conviction Rule] 1(12) for filing successive petitions." Id. Under Post-Conviction Rule 1(12), a successive petition for post-conviction relief cannot be filed without court authorization. An unauthorized successive petition for post-conviction relief must be dismissed. See id.
[¶7] The State argues that Green's April 2024 petition for an award of educational credit time was an unauthorized successive petition for post-conviction relief such that this appeal should be dismissed. We agree. Green filed two requests in this case for an award of educational credit time: first in September 2023 and then again in April 2024. After filing the September 2023 motion for jail-time credit, Green had to obtain leave to file any other petitions on the same issue or other post-conviction claims. See P-C.R. 1(12); Young, 888 N.E.2d at 1256-57. Because Green did not obtain leave to file the April 2024 petition for an award of educational credit time from which he now appeals, that petition is an unapproved successive petition for post-conviction relief.
[¶8] To the extent Green's April 2024 petition can be read to seek permission to file a successive petition for post-conviction relief, Green did not follow proper procedure. Pursuant to Post-Conviction Rule 1(12)(a), a petitioner seeking to file a successive post-conviction relief petition must complete a Successive Post-Conviction Relief Rule 1 Petition Form and send it to the Clerk of the Indiana Supreme Court, Indiana Court of Appeals, and Tax Court. Green did not do so. Based on the foregoing, Green's April 2024 petition for an award of educational credit should have been dismissed. See Young, 888 N.E.2d at 1257. We therefore affirm the trial court's denial of that petition.
[¶9] Affirmed.
Pyle, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.