Phillip D. Ealy v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Apr 07 2017, 8:24 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
Phillip D. Ealy Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Pendleton, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Monika Prekopa Talbot
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Phillip D. Ealy, April 7, 2017
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A05-1610-CR-2304
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Grant Hawkins,
Appellee-Respondent Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G05-9312-CF-168186
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
[1] In 1994, Phillip D. Ealy was convicted of murder and carrying a handgun
without a license and sentenced to sixty years. See Ealy v. State, 685 N.E.2d
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-CR-2304 | April 7, 2017 Page 1 of 2
1047 (Ind. 1997). In 2016, Ealy sought six months of credit for a substance-
abuse program that he had completed in prison in April 1996. See Appellant’s
App. p. 22. The Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) and later the trial
court denied Ealy’s request, and he now appeals. Indiana Code section 35-50-
6-3.3(b), which allows a person to earn educational credit for completing a
DOC-approved substance-abuse program while confined in the DOC, went into
effect in 1999. See P.L. 183-1999, § 3. However, educational credit cannot be
earned under subsection (b) unless the person completes at least a portion of the
program requirements after June 30, 1999. Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3.3(h).
Because Ealy completed the program in April 1996, he is not entitled to any
credit.1 We therefore affirm the trial court.
[2] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Robb, J., concur.
1
To the extent Ealy seeks educational credit for completing an anger-management program, he has not
shown that the program is covered by the statute. And to the extent he seeks educational credit for
completing the program “Thinking for a Change” in 2007, he has not exhausted his administrative remedies
within the DOC. See Appellant’s App. pp. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 (documents showing that Ealy sought
credit for only substance-abuse and anger-management programs); Ellis v. State, 58 N.E.3d 938, 941 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2016) (explaining that a person must exhaust his administrative remedies within the DOC before
appealing to a court because determinations regarding credit are the responsibility of the DOC), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-CR-2304 | April 7, 2017 Page 2 of 2