Opinion
21A-CR-1468
01-31-2022
Timothy Manges, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
APPELLANT PRO SE Timothy Manges New Castle, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General George P. Sherman Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
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.
Appeal from the Elkhart Superior Court The Honorable Teresa L. Cataldo, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 20D03-0012-CF-186
APPELLANT PRO SE Timothy Manges New Castle, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General George P. Sherman Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
VAIDIK, JUDGE.
[¶1] In January 2002, Timothy Manges was sentenced to fifty years in the Department of Correction for Class A felony child molesting. In May 2021, Manges filed a Verified Petition for Placement in Community Transition Program under Indiana Code section 35-38-1-25, indicating that with credit time his earliest possible release date was April 2, 2022. The trial court denied the petition. The court also denied Manges's motion to correct error, explaining it had "not yet received notification from the Indiana Department of Correction that the Defendant is eligible for participation in said Program" and that it "does not have jurisdiction" until it receives such notification. Appellant's App. Vol. III p. 42.
[¶2] Manges now appeals, pro se, arguing the trial court misinterpreted Indiana Code section 35-38-1-25. While the appeal was pending, Manges notified the trial court he had been accepted into a different program and no longer wants to participate in the community-transition program. Id. at 113. He acknowledges this rendered the appeal moot but asks us to address the merits because "this is a matter of first impression" and there is an "absence of rulings on this issue and statute." Reply Br. p. 6. The State, on the other hand, contends the appeal should be dismissed. We agree. As we have held, "A case should be dismissed as moot when no effective relief can be rendered to the parties before the court." J.B. v. State, 55 N.E.3d 831, 833 (Ind.Ct.App. 2016). Because Manges no longer wants to participate in the community-transition program, we cannot grant him effective relief. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
[¶3] Dismissed.
Najam, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.