John Gates v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Apr 28 2020, 8:42 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
John Gates Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
New Castle, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
David A. Arthur
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
John Gates, April 28, 2020
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-MI-1288
v. Appeal from the Henry Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kit C. Dean Crane,
Appellee-Respondent Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
33C02-1902-MI-12
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-1288 | April 28, 2020 Page 1 of 5
[1] John Gates appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for post-
conviction relief,1 arguing that the trial court erred when it granted the State’s
motion for summary disposition. Gates argues that there were genuine issues of
material fact rendering summary disposition inappropriate. Finding no error,
we affirm.
Facts
[2] On May 8, 2008, Gates pleaded guilty to charges of rape and escape in
Vanderburgh County and was sentenced to an aggregate term of fourteen years
in the Department of Correction. While incarcerated, on June 16, 2010, Gates
also pleaded guilty to prisoner possessing a device or material, a Class C felony,
and was sentenced to a three-year term to run consecutively to his previously-
imposed fourteen-year term.
[3] On June 10, 2017, Gates was released to parole. Later, on August 10, 2017, the
State alleged that Gates had violated the conditions of his parole by possessing
obscene materials. Gates admitted to violating the conditions of his parole on
August 11, 2017, and subsequently waived his right to a preliminary parole
revocation hearing. Relying on various documents and Gates’s admission, on
September 26, 2017, the Parole Board revoked Gates’s parole.
1
Though Gates initially filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the trial court properly construed this
action as a petition for post-conviction relief because Gates is challenging the revocation of his parole and is
not seeking immediate release from an unlawful incarceration. See Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(a)(5); see
also Grayson v. State, 58 N.E.3d 998, 1001 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-1288 | April 28, 2020 Page 2 of 5
[4] On February 12, 2019, Gates filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which he
later amended on March 4, 2019. In response, the State filed a motion for
summary disposition on March 26, 2019, arguing that the matter should not be
treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and that Gates should be denied
relief because he admitted to violating the conditions of his parole. The trial
court took the matter under advisement. On May 21, 2019, the trial court issued
an order stating that it had treated Gates’s petition as one for post-conviction
relief and, consequently, granted the State’s motion for summary disposition,
thereby affirming the revocation of his parole. Gates now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Gates’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred by granting the
State’s motion for summary disposition and affirming that his parole should be
revoked. Specifically, Gates contends that there should have been an
evidentiary hearing on his petition because there were genuine issues of
material fact.
[6] Pursuant to Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g):
The court may grant a motion by either party for summary
disposition of the petition when it appears from the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, stipulations of
fact, and any affidavits submitted, that there is no genuine issue of
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. . . . If an issue of material fact is raised, then the
court shall hold an evidentiary hearing as soon as reasonably
possible.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-1288 | April 28, 2020 Page 3 of 5
Under this subsection, “[a]n appellate court reviews the grant of a motion for
summary disposition in post-conviction proceedings on appeal in the same way
as a motion for summary judgment.” Norris v. State, 896 N.E.2d 1149, 1151
(Ind. 2008). And it is well established that:
the standard of review of a grant or denial of a motion for
summary judgment is the same as that used in the trial court:
summary judgment is appropriate only where the designated
evidence shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The
moving party must designate sufficient evidence to eliminate any
genuine factual issues, and once the moving party has done so, the
burden shifts to the nonmoving party to come forth with contrary
evidence.
Mid-States Gen. & Mech. Contracting Corp. v. Town of Goodland, 811 N.E.2d 425,
430 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (internal citation omitted).
[7] Based on the record, we know that in rendering its decision to revoke Gates’s
parole, “the Parole Board relied on the Parole Release Agreement, Parole
Violation Report, Initial hearing[,] Preliminary Hearing Waiver, New
Convictions, Parole Case Notes, Offender Information System[,] the Plea, and
other evidence.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 8-9. Moreover, Gates admitted to
possessing obscene materials and violating the conditions of his parole. Gates
even signed a document affirming all of this to be true—further evidence that
Gates understood that his parole could be revoked. It is apparent to us that
Gates understood the nature of his actions and accepted the ultimate
consequence of his parole revocation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-1288 | April 28, 2020 Page 4 of 5
[8] Thus, the State has designated sufficient evidence showing that there are no
genuine issues of material fact. Despite Gates’s contention that an evidentiary
hearing on his petition for post-conviction relief should have been held, he has
proffered no evidence to rebut the State’s evidence except to say that “[i]n the
particular case of appellant Gates the material fact allegation required an
evidentiary hearing for the submission of evidence for the purpose of hearing
testimony in [sic] that is ‘best evidence’ in any case.” Appellant’s Br. p. 8.
Accordingly, we find that Gates has not met his burden.
[9] Therefore, the trial court did not err when it granted the State’s motion for
summary disposition, thereby denying Gates’s petition for post-conviction
relief.2
[10] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bradford, C.J., and Pyle, J., concur.
2
The State spends a considerable amount of time countering two arguments allegedly raised by Gates: (1)
that Gates was discharged from his escape sentence; and (2) that Gates could not be on probation and parole
concurrently. However, we decline to address these, as Gates himself mentions these concerns only as asides
in his brief and does not support them with relevant caselaw or additional argument. To address them here
would only distract from Gates’s central and, in our opinion, sole issue: the revocation of his parole.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-1288 | April 28, 2020 Page 5 of 5