Timothy N. Hatton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) , 121 N.E.3d 137 ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jan 17 2019, 9:54 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy N. Hatton Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
New Castle, Indiana Attorney General
Angela N. Sanchez
Assistant Section Chief,
Criminal Appeals
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Timothy N. Hatton, January 17, 2019
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-PC-749
v. Appeal from the Marshall Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Robert O. Bowen
Appellee-Respondent Trial Court Cause No.
50D01-1107-FA-24
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-749 | January 17, 2019 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Timothy N. Hatton appeals the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief
he filed after pleading guilty to Class B felony child molesting. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In July 2011, the State charged Hatton with Class A felony child molesting,
Class B felony criminal deviate conduct, Class C felony child molesting, Class
D felony sexual battery, and Class B misdemeanor battery. In October 2012,
Hatton, who was represented by a court-appointed attorney, pled guilty to only
one count of Class B felony child molesting in exchange for the State dismissing
the remaining charges. The trial court imposed a sentence of twenty years, with
fifteen years to serve and five years suspended to probation.
[3] In December 2014, Hatton filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming
that his attorney had been ineffective and that his guilty plea was invalid. The
post-conviction court ordered the case submitted by affidavit. Hatton then
moved to compel his attorney to provide a copy of his file from the underlying
criminal case, alleging that he had requested the file and had only received “the
discovery in November 2011.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 127. Hatton also
sent his attorney a set of fourteen interrogatories. After receiving no responses
to the interrogatories, Hatton filed a second motion to compel. The post-
conviction court denied both motions. Regarding the case file, the court
determined that the attorney had already given Hatton the relevant documents
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-749 | January 17, 2019 Page 2 of 5
from his office. Regarding the interrogatories, the court concluded that “it does
not appear that answers to the questions posed have any relevance to the issues
presented in the Petition, are not presentable in the form of a Summary
Affidavit or appear to be a ‘fishing expedition’ into trial strategy.” Id. Shortly
thereafter, Hatton filed his affidavit in support of his petition. He did not file
affidavits from his attorney or any other witnesses. The post-conviction court
denied Hatton’s petition.
[4] Hatton now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Hatton has failed to demonstrate any error by the post-conviction court. The
facts section of his opening brief focuses on his substantive claims for relief
(“Ineffective Assistance of Counsel,” “Guilty Plea (Ineffective Assistance),”
“Speedy Trial Issues,” “Newly Available Evidence,” and “Due Process”),
Appellant’s Br. pp. 5-11, while the argument section primarily addresses
procedural decisions made by the post-conviction court. He makes a number of
general assertions in both sections but does not develop any of them. For
example, in the facts section, Hatton claims that “[f]alse statements, dismissed
charges, and other irrelevant factors were used against Hatton and [counsel] did
not suppress or object,” id. at 6, but he does not identify any such “false
statements” or “irrelevant factors” or explain how they were “used” against
him. The remainder of the facts section includes more of the same. See id. at 6-
11. To the extent he has articulated any specific arguments, his only record
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-749 | January 17, 2019 Page 3 of 5
citations are to “CCS,” his own affidavit (“Affidavit filed January 18 th, 2018”),
“Transcripts for October 24th, 2012, January 22nd, 2013,” “CCS entry for
November 22, 2011” (which simply says “Court receives a letter from the
defendant”), and “Plea Agreement October 24th, 2012” (which Hatton did not
include in his appendix on appeal). Such general citations are entirely
unhelpful, especially when accompanied by general claims of error. If Hatton’s
argument is that the post-conviction court should have believed the self-serving
factual allegations in his affidavit, there is nothing we can do for him. “[T]he
[post-conviction] judge is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses.” Ward v.
State, 969 N.E.2d 46, 66 (Ind. 2012), reh’g denied.
[6] The argument section of Hatton’s brief is similarly deficient. He asserts that the
post-conviction court should have held an evidentiary hearing before ruling on
his petition. However, other than generically urging that he “has raised obvious
issues in his PCR,” Appellant’s Br. p. 11, Hatton fails to explain why such a
hearing was necessary. When the post-conviction court orders a case submitted
by affidavit, the court has discretion to decide whether to hold an evidentiary
hearing, and we will reverse only for an abuse of that discretion. Smith v. State,
822 N.E.2d 193, 201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. Hatton has not shown
such an abuse in this case.
[7] Hatton also argues that the post-conviction court should have granted his
motions to compel his attorney to provide a complete copy of his file and to
respond to Hatton’s interrogatories. Whether to grant a motion to compel is a
decision we leave to the discretion of the post-conviction court, and we will
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-749 | January 17, 2019 Page 4 of 5
reverse only for an abuse of that discretion. Pannell v. State, 36 N.E.3d 477, 493
(Ind. Ct. App. 2015), reh’g denied, trans. denied. Here, when the post-conviction
court denied Hatton’s motions, it reasoned that Hatton’s attorney had already
given Hatton the relevant documents from his file and that the interrogatories
did not appear to “have any relevance to the issues presented in the Petition, are
not presentable in the form of a Summary Affidavit or appear to be a ‘fishing
expedition’ into trial strategy.” Hatton briefly mentions the post-conviction
court’s reasoning but does not explain why he thinks it was wrong, other than
vaguely asserting that “[t]hese materials are essential so Hatton can raise all
issues and for full evidentiary discoveries.” Appellant’s Br. p. 12. In short,
Hatton has identified no basis on which we could conclude that the post-
conviction court abused its discretion by denying his motions to compel.
[8] Affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PC-749 | January 17, 2019 Page 5 of 5