Christopher Wood v. State of Indiana ( 2014 )

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 Jan 31 2014, 9:13 am
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
CHRISTOPHER WOOD GREGORY F. ZOELLER
New Castle, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
KARL M. SCHARNBERG
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
CHRISTOPHER WOOD, )
)
Appellant-Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) No. 33A01-1310-MI-430
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Respondent. )
APPEAL FROM THE HENRY SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Kit C. Dean Crane, Judge
Cause No. 33C02-1308-MI-87
January 31, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BRADFORD, Judge
CASE SUMMARY
Appellant-Petitioner Christopher Wood is currently incarcerated following his guilty
pleas to sexual misconduct with a minor and dissemination of material harmful to a minor.
Wood filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that he was erroneously denied forty-nine days
of presentencing credit time, a petition the trial court denied. Because Wood does not allege
that he is entitled to immediate discharge, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 28, 2013, Wood pled guilty to Class B felony sexual misconduct with a
minor and Class D felony dissemination of material harmful to minors and received an
aggregate sentence of eighteen years of incarceration, five of which were suspended to
probation. On August 23, 2013, Wood filed a habeas corpus petition in Henry Circuit Court
based on an alleged erroneous denial of credit time, which petition the trial court denied on
September 3, 2013.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Wood contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for a writ of habeas
corpus. “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.” Ind. Code § 34-25.5-1-1. The purpose
of a writ of habeas corpus is to determine the lawfulness of the defendant’s detention.
Hardley v. State, 893 N.E.2d 740, 742 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). A trial court must provide a writ
of habeas corpus if a petitioner is unlawfully incarcerated and entitled to immediate release.
2
Id. Wood alleges only that he was erroneously denied forty-nine days of presentencing credit
time, not that he is entitled to immediate discharge. As the Indiana Supreme Court has
squarely held, “no court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for habeas corpus unless it is
alleged that the prisoner is entitled to immediate discharge.” Dunn v. Jenkins, 268 Ind. 478,
479-80, 377 N.E.2d 868, 870 (1978). Even if Wood was entitled to the forty-nine days of
credit time, he would not be eligible for immediate release. Consequently, the trial court
correctly denied Wood’s habeas corpus petition.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
MATHIAS, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
3