Christopher Rondeau v. Dushan Zatecky (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Jun 26 2018, 8:54 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Christopher Rondeau Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Pendleton, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Abigail R. Recker
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Christopher Rondeau, June 26, 2018
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
48A02-1709-MI-2348
v. Appeal from the
Madison Circuit Court
Dushan Zatecky, The Honorable
Appellee-Respondent. Mark Dudley, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
48C06-1707-MI-615
Kirsch, Judge.
[1] Christopher Rondeau (“Rondeau”) was tried, convicted of murder, and
sentenced by the Marion Superior Court. Following the denials of his direct
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1709-MI-2348 | June 26, 2018 Page 1 of 8
appeal and his petition for post-conviction relief, Rondeau filed Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Writ”) in the Madison Circuit Court, contending that
he was being wrongfully detained in the Pendleton Correctional Facility.
Respondent Dushan Zatecky (“Zatecky”), the Superintendent of the Pendleton
Correctional Facility, filed a motion asserting that Rondeau’s Writ should be
considered a petition for post-conviction relief and requesting that it be
transferred to the sentencing court. The Madison Circuit Court granted
Zatecky’s request, and Rondeau’s Writ was transferred to Marion Superior
Court. Rondeau now appeals and raises three issues that we consolidate and
restate as: whether the Madison Circuit Court erred when it transferred
Rondeau’s Writ to the county where he was convicted and sentenced, pursuant
to Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(c).
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Rondeau was convicted of murder and sentenced in June 2010 to fifty-five years
in the Indiana Department of Correction. Rondeau filed a direct appeal, and
this court affirmed his conviction by memorandum decision. Rondeau v. State,
No. 49A02-1006-CR-694, 2011 WL 977075 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2011),
trans. denied. The Rondeau decision reveals that, in April 2009, Rondeau, then
thirty-nine years old, lived with his grandmother (“Grandmother”), age
seventy-seven, and her brother-in-law, Adolf Stegbauer (“Adolf”), age sixty-
nine. On April 9, a sword fight erupted between Rondeau and Adolf.
Grandmother intervened and was stabbed, and “Adolf was stabbed at least ten
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1709-MI-2348 | June 26, 2018 Page 2 of 8
times, suffering injuries to his hand, arm, abdomen, head, heel, foot, and
shoulder.” Id. at *1. Rondeau called 911, and all three were transported to the
hospital. Grandmother suffered a massive hemorrhage and died shortly after
arriving at the hospital. Rondeau spoke to police at the hospital, describing the
sword fight involving him, Grandmother, and Adolf. Adolf died four days
later, and “The cause of death was sharp force injury to the abdomen that
caused bacteria in his stomach to be released into his peritoneal and abdominal
cavities and led to septic shock.” Id. at *2. The State charged Rondeau with
Adolf’s murder and Class C felony reckless homicide relating to Grandmother’s
death. The jury found Rondeau guilty of Adolf’s murder and not guilty of
reckless homicide in the death of Grandmother, and the sentencing court
imposed a sentence of fifty-five years. Id.
[4] Rondeau’s direct appeal alleged errors with regard to trial court discovery
rulings, the admission of evidence at trial, and the sufficiency of evidence to
support his murder conviction. In finding that the evidence was sufficient and
that there was no error in the jury rejecting his self-defense claim, the Rondeau
court referred to specific physical evidence about Adolf, including that he was
sixty-nine years old, he weighed 169 pounds, comparing it to Rondeau who
weighed 250, and Adolf had a BAC of .252 due to the fact that he had been
drinking all day. The court also stated that the evidence showed that Adolf
suffered “at least ten” stab wounds. Id. at *9. The Rondeau court affirmed his
conviction. Rondeau filed a petition for post-conviction relief, and, following a
hearing, the post-conviction court denied his petition. Thereafter, this court
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1709-MI-2348 | June 26, 2018 Page 3 of 8
affirmed the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition. Rondeau v. State, 48
N.E.3d 907 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied.1
[5] On July 20, 2017, Rondeau filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Writ”)
in the Madison Circuit Court. In his Writ, Rondeau claimed that “the
pretended cause” of his restraint is murder and that the restraint “is illegal”
because the Marion Superior Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction of
his case because, he claims, Adolf “died in 2008 in Germany.”2 Appellant’s App.
Vol. II at 7. He asserts:
Indiana courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over
German citizens that died in Germany in 2008, and therefore,
there is no statutory or common law authority for the court to
hear the case concerning [the murder charge]. There was no
crime committed in Indiana in 2009, like the [State] alleges, as
the Petitioner cannot kill someone in 2009, that was already
dead, according to his own government since 2008.
....
The [State] has not shown proof that “Adolf Stegbauer” was
alive after 2008, or that he was in the United States at the time of
1
After the Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer, Rondeau filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, raising nine issues, including ineffective
assistance of trial and appellate counsel, insufficient evidence, denial of his right to a speedy trial, jury
instruction error, and violation of his rights when a computer was seized during a search. Rondeau v. Zatecky,
No. 1:16-cv-762-WTL-DKL, 2016 WL 4088720 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 2, 2016). The District Court denied his
petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding that “[e]ach of Rondeau’s habeas claims . . . is barred from
consideration here because of Rondeau’s unexcused procedural default consisting of his failure to fully and
fairly present them [to] the Indiana Supreme Court.” Id. at *3.
2
Rondeau does not include any documentary evidence in support of his assertion that his great-uncle Adolf
Stegbauer died in Germany in 2008, nor does he indicate when or how he learned of the alleged death.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1709-MI-2348 | June 26, 2018 Page 4 of 8
the alleged murder in 2009, or that a person named “Adolf
Stegbauer” ever even existed at the time of the alleged crime.
The [State] has never met it’s burden of proof giving Indiana
courts subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case concerning
anyone named “Adolf Stegbauer.”
Id. at 8. Rondeau contends in his Writ that the conviction was “void” from its
inception, “a complete nullity and without legal effect,” and that, therefore, he
is entitled to immediate release. Id. at 11.
[6] On August 18, 2018, Zatecky filed a motion to transfer Rondeau’s Writ to the
Marion Superior Court, which was the court that convicted and sentenced him.
Id. at 28-31. Zatecky’s motion maintained that the Madison Circuit Court did
not have jurisdiction over Rondeau’s Writ because Rondeau was challenging
the validity of his conviction, which pursuant to Indiana Post-Conviction Rule
1(1)(c), must be transferred to the convicting court, here, Marion County
Superior Court Criminal Division 1. On September 1, 2017, the Madison
Circuit Court issued its order granting Zatecky’s motion to transfer, ordering
that:
this action be TRANSFERRED to the Marion County Superior
Court Criminal Division 1, cause number 49G01-0904-MR-
038670, because the petitioner is seeking to attack the validity of
his conviction, which he cannot do in this court. Miller v.
Lowrance, 629 N.E.2d 846 (Ind. 1994).
Id. at 43. Rondeau now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1709-MI-2348 | June 26, 2018 Page 5 of 8
Discussion and Decision
[7] Indiana Code section 34-25.5-1-1 provides that “[e]very person whose liberty is
restrained, under any pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus
to inquire into the cause of the restraint, and shall be delivered from the
restraint if the restraint is illegal.” The purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is
to bring the person in custody before the court for inquiry into the cause of
restraint. Manley v. Butts, 71 N.E.3d 1153, 1156 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans.
denied. We review the trial court’s habeas decision for an abuse of discretion.
Hardley v. State, 893 N.E.2d 740, 742 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
[8] A petitioner is entitled to habeas corpus relief “only if he is entitled to his
immediate release from unlawful custody.” Martin v. State, 901 N.E.2d 645,
647 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). However, a petitioner “‘may not file a writ of habeas
corpus to attack his conviction or sentence.’” Love v. State, 22 N.E.3d 663, 664
(Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Partlow v. Superintendent, Miami Corr. Facility, 756
N.E.2d 978, 980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), superseded by statute on other grounds as
stated in Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818, 826 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied),
trans. denied. Rather, he or she “must file a petition for post-conviction relief in
the court of conviction (rather than a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the
court in the county of incarceration).” Hardley, 893 N.E.2d at 743 (citing Ind.
Post-Conviction Rule 1).
[9] Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1 section 1(c) provides:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1709-MI-2348 | June 26, 2018 Page 6 of 8
[I]f a person applies for a writ of habeas corpus in the county
where the person is incarcerated and challenges the validity of his
conviction or sentence, that court shall transfer the cause to the
court in which the conviction took place, and the latter court
shall treat it as a petition for relief under this Rule.
Rondeau claims on appeal that Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(c) does not apply,
and thus the Madison Circuit Court should not have transferred his Writ,
because he “only challenged the trial court[’]s subject matter jurisdiction or
authority to hear the case[,]” and he was not actually attacking “the validity of
his conviction or sentence.” Appellant’s Br. at 14. We disagree.
[10] The basis of Rondeau’s Writ is that Adolf died in 2008 in Germany, and
consequently, the Marion Superior Court did not have subject matter
jurisdiction over his case, in which he was charged with the murder of Adolf.
See id. (asking, “How can one ‘murder’ a dead person?”). Rondeau contends
that, because there was no subject matter jurisdiction, the ensuing murder
conviction and judgment were void. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 7.
[11] In Miller v. Lowrance, 629 N.E.2d 846 (Ind. 1994), Lowrance was convicted in
1989 in the Vanderburgh Circuit Court of two counts of attempted murder. In
1991, this court affirmed his convictions. In 1993, he filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus in the Madison Circuit Court, where he was incarcerated at the
correctional facility, alleging that he was being held on a void judgment because
the person who signed the abstract of judgment was never appointed a special
judge, and thus lacked the authority to enter a judgment. Id. at 847. The
Madison Circuit Court granted the petition. The superintendent of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1709-MI-2348 | June 26, 2018 Page 7 of 8
correctional facility appealed, arguing that the Madison Circuit Court lacked
jurisdiction to rule on the petition and that Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(C)
required that the Madison Circuit Court transfer the petition to the
Vanderburgh Circuit Court. Id. Our Supreme Court found that Lowrance’s
petition for writ of habeas corpus, which, like Rondeau, alleged that the
judgment was void, “attacks the validity of his conviction and sentence” and
“falls within the parameters of P-C R. 1(1)(C).” Id. Therefore, the Court
reversed the Madison Circuit Court’s decision to grant the petition and
instructed that the cause be transferred to Vanderburgh Circuit Court.
[12] Likewise, here, Rondeau’s Writ challenged the validity of his conviction and
sentence, and the Madison Circuit Court properly transferred it to the Marion
Superior Court, where Rondeau was convicted and sentenced.3
[13] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
3
While we do not reach the merits of Rondeau’s claim that the judgment was void – because Adolf
purportedly was already deceased, and Rondeau could not have murdered him – we note that it does not
appear from the record before us, nor does he allege, that he filed a motion to dismiss the murder charge on
the basis that Adolf was not the person he stabbed in a sword fight on April 9, 2009. Accordingly, Rondeau
may have waived any argument that Adolf was not the person he stabbed, which is the premise of his claim
that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over his case.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1709-MI-2348 | June 26, 2018 Page 8 of 8