Gregory A. Caudle v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Mar 31 2015, 9:43 am
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.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Gregory A. Caudle Gregory F. Zoeller
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility Attorney General of Indiana
Carlisle, Indiana
J.T. Whitehead
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Gregory A. Caudle, March 31, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1412-CR-847
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Sheila A. Carlisle,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
The Honorable Stanley E. Kroh,
Master Commissioner
Case No. 49G03-1305-PC-30738
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1412-CR-847 | March 31, 2015 Page 1 of 4
[1] Gregory A. Caudle, pro se, appeals the trial court’s denial of his “Verified
Motion for Discharge and Request for Production of Certified Documents.”
Concluding that the trial court’s denial of the motion is not a final appealable
order, or in the alternative that Caudle’s motion constituted a successive
petition for postconviction relief filed without permission of this Court, we
dismiss the appeal.
[2] We sua sponte address the issue of our jurisdiction in this case. The lack of
appellate jurisdiction may be raised at any time and, even if the parties do not
question subject matter jurisdiction, we may consider the issue sua sponte.
Haste v. State, 967 N.E.2d 576, 576 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). It is well settled that
this Court has jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments and appeals from
interlocutory orders. Ind. Appellate Rule 5. The record indicates that Caudle
filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief on August 27, 2014.1 The current
motion for discharge and request for production of documents was
subsequently filed on November 6, 2014. Although not labeled as such,
because Caudle has already petitioned for postconviction relief, his current
motion may be construed as a motion to amend or to supplement his petition
for postconviction relief, and therefore the trial court’s denial was not a final
appealable judgment, as it meets none of the criteria for final judgments
1
Caudle was convicted, following a jury trial, of two counts of class B felony burglary and one count of class
A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. The jury also found Caudle to be a habitual offender. While he
originally filed a direct appeal, he later petitioned to withdraw that appeal. We granted his petition and
dismissed his appeal with prejudice on February 14, 2014.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1412-CR-847 | March 31, 2015 Page 2 of 4
provided by Indiana Appellate Rule 2(H). Additionally, the trial court’s denial
meets none of the criteria for interlocutory appeals of right or discretionary
interlocutory appeals. See Ind. Appellate Rule 14(A), -(B). Therefore, the trial
court’s ruling is not now appealable.
[3] We note that even if Caudle’s motion is not considered a motion to amend his
petition for postconviction relief, his motion alternatively may be construed as a
habeas corpus petition because he alleged that he is being illegally imprisoned
and is entitled to immediate release. See Ind. Code § 34-25.5-1-1 (“Every
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.”); see Hardley v. State, 893
N.E.2d 740, 742 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (a defendant is entitled to a writ of habeas
corpus if he is unlawfully incarcerated and entitled to immediate release).
Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(c) provides that a habeas corpus petition
challenging the validity of a conviction, as Caudle clearly does here, should be
treated as a petition for postconviction relief. As Caudle has already filed a
petition for postconviction relief, the current motion would be a successive
petition, and successive petitions for postconviction relief are not allowed
without permission from this Court. See Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(12).
Caudle has not sought such permission.
[4] For the foregoing reasons, we do not have jurisdiction over Caudle’s appeal of
the trial court’s ruling. This appeal is dismissed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1412-CR-847 | March 31, 2015 Page 3 of 4
[5] Dismissed.
Brown, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1412-CR-847 | March 31, 2015 Page 4 of 4