Shelton v. State

Full title: John Shelton, Appellant-Petitioner, v. State of Indiana…

Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana

Date published: Jun 29, 2023

No. 22A-PC-3048 (Ind. App. Jun. 29, 2023)

Opinion

22A-PC-3048

06-29-2023

John Shelton, Appellant-Petitioner, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Respondent

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Michael K. Ausbrook IU Maurer School of Law Federal Habeas Project Bloomington, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General Ellen H. Meilaender Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

VAIDIK, JUDGE

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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Hendricks Superior Court The Honorable Stephenie LeMay-Luken, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 32D05-2110-PC-8

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Michael K. Ausbrook IU Maurer School of Law Federal Habeas Project Bloomington, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General Ellen H. Meilaender Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

MEMORANDUM DECISION

VAIDIK, JUDGE

[¶1] John Shelton appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He contends the court should have (1) given him a reasonable time to amend his petition after the State Public Defender's Office withdrew its representation, (2) denied the State's motion for summary judgment, and (3) entered findings of fact and conclusions of law. He asks us to remand to the trial court for further proceedings. The State concedes error on all three points and agrees that remand is appropriate. We accept the State's concession, reverse the denial of Shelton's petition, and remand to the trial court.

[¶2] After obtaining the State's concession, Shelton filed a reply brief seeking additional relief. Specifically, he argues we should order that (1) "he be given at least six months before any evidentiary hearing to hire a lawyer and amend his post-conviction petition" and (2) his post-conviction case be heard by a different trial-court judge "because the current judge's treatment of [him] has been repeatedly not merely unfair, but unreasonable." Appellant's Reply Br. pp. 6-9. Because Shelton did not make these arguments in his opening brief, and because he does not support them with citations to the record or legal authority, he has waived them. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46.

[¶3] Reversed and remanded.

Mathias, J., and Foley, J., concur.