Ronald Rostochak v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 18 2018, 6:40 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Ronald Rostochak Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
New Castle, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
AMICI CURIAE PRO SE Jesse R. Drum
Deputy Attorney General
Timothy Galey
Indianapolis, Indiana
Ryan Willoughby
Brian Woodring
Jesse Cole
Joel A. Richardson
Gregory Owens
Mason Brown
Robert Mow
Dallas Hartman
James Kanable
Steven E. Malloch
Jesston L. Cora
Ryan Myers
Ronald Sweatt
Jonathan Crosson
New Castle, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 92A05-1710-CR-2316 | October 18, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Ronald Rostochak, October 18, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
92A05-1710-CR-2316
v. Appeal from the
Whitley Circuit Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff. James R. Heuer, Senior Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
92C01-0911-FA-132
Kirsch, Judge.
[1] Ronald Rostochak (“Rostochak”) appeals the trial court’s order denying his
petition for educational credit. Because Rostochak has already received the
educational credit that he requests, we dismiss his appeal as moot.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] From September 2007 to December 2008, Rostochak molested M.E., beginning
when she was twelve years old. Rostochak v. State, No. 92A05-1112-CR-688, at
*1-2 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2012), trans. denied. In 2011, he was convicted of
Class A felony child molesting and sentenced to thirty years, with five years
suspended, for a total executed sentence of twenty-five years. Appellant’s App.
Vol. II at 35-37. From 1996 through 1997, prior to incarceration, Rostochak
had earned forty-two credit hours at University of Northwestern Ohio. Id. at
18. On August 9, 2014, while incarcerated, Rostochak completed his associate
degree at Grace College by earning eighteen more credit hours from January to
August 2014. Id. at 17-18. The Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 92A05-1710-CR-2316 | October 18, 2018 Page 2 of 5
awarded Rostochak 110 days of educational credit after the completion of his
associate degree. Id. at 17.
[3] On July 28, 2017, Rostochak filed an informal complaint, requesting that he be
awarded one year of educational credit for his associate degree. Id. at 15. On
August 3, 2017, a member of the DOC staff, after reviewing Rostochak’s
complaint, responded that this was “a legislative issue.” Id. On August 8,
2017, Rostochak filed an offender grievance, which again requested that he be
awarded one year of educational credit for completing his associate degree. Id.
at 14. On August 28, 2017, DOC staff responded that classification issues
cannot be resolved through the grievance process and that such issues are to be
appealed through their own appeal process. Id. at 13. On September 5, 2017,
Rostochak filed a classification appeal, which the DOC denied. Id. at 12.
[4] On September 11, 2017, Rostochak filed a petition for educational credit with
the trial court, which was denied the same day. Id. at 4-5, 22. After the trial
court denied Rostochak’s petition for educational credit, he filed this appeal.
On March 20, 2018, Rostochak filed a motion to certify his appeal as a class
action, and in the motion, he admitted “that the Appellant has now received the
full 365 days educational credit for completion of his associate[] degree he
requested in his appeal.” Motion to Certify Appeal as a Class Action at 2.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Rostochak argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his
petition for educational credit. He asserts that because he completed an
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 92A05-1710-CR-2316 | October 18, 2018 Page 3 of 5
associate degree, he is entitled to the full 365-day educational credit. However,
the record shows that Rostochak has received the educational credit he
requests.
[6] “[W]here the principal questions at issue cease to be of real controversy
between the parties, the errors assigned become moot questions, and this court
will not retain jurisdiction to decide them.” Sainvil v. State, 51 N.E.3d 337, 342
(Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. Therefore, when we are not able to provide
effective relief upon an issue, “the issue is deemed moot, and we will not
reverse the trial court’s determination where absolutely no change in the status
quo will result.” Id. Here, Rostochak concedes that the DOC awarded him
“the full 365 days [of] educational credit for [the] completion of his associate[]
degree” he is requesting on appeal. Motion to Certify Appeal as a Class Action at 2.
Accordingly, there is no effective relief for this court to give Rostochak, and his
appeal is moot.
[7] Although we do not usually review moot issues, “Indiana courts have long
recognized that a case may be decided on its merits under an exception to the
general rule when the case involves questions of ‘great public interest.’”
Breedlove v. State, 20 N.E.3d 172, 174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing In re Lawrance,
579 N.E.2d 32, 37 (Ind. 1991)), trans. denied. “‘Cases in this category typically
raise important policy concerns and present issues that are likely to recur.’” Id.
(quoting Mosley v. State, 908 N.E.2d 599, 603 (Ind. 2009)). Rostochak’s issue on
appeal only affects a specific subset of prisoners -- those who committed their
crimes after July 1, 1993, when the educational credit statute was added, see
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 92A05-1710-CR-2316 | October 18, 2018 Page 4 of 5
Budd v. State, 935 N.E.2d 746, 752-53 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (stating that there
was no educational credit statute until Indiana Code section 35-50-6-3.3 was
added in 1993), completed some courses before their incarceration, and finished
their degrees after July 1, 2014, when subsection (e) was added to Indiana Code
section 35-50-6-3.3. Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3.3(e) (“Credit time earned under this
section must be directly proportional to the time served and course work
completed while incarcerated.”). This case does not present a question of great
public interest, and we will not deviate from the general rule of not deciding
moot cases. We, therefore, dismiss Rostochak’s appeal as moot.1
[8] Dismissed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.
1
Rostochak also raises an issue regarding his concern that the DOC will miscalculate his educational credit
when he completes his bachelor’s degree. However, we do not reach such issue for any one of several
reasons. First, Rostochak has not exhausted his administrative remedies regarding his claim. “‘When
educational credit time is denied, a person must exhaust his administrative remedies within the DOC before
appealing to a court because determinations altering credit time are the responsibility of the DOC.’” Ellis v.
State, 58 N.E.3d 938, 941 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Stevens v. State, 895 N.E.2d 418, 419 (Ind. Ct. App.
2008)), trans. denied. Second, Rostochak did not raise this issue to the trial court and it is, therefore, waived.
Leatherman v. State, 101 N.E.3d 879, 885 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (“[A] party may not present an argument or
issue on appeal unless the party raised that argument or issue before the trial court. In such circumstances
the argument is waived.”). Third, Rostochak’s claim is not yet ripe for review because he has not yet finished
his bachelor’s degree and received a calculation of educational credit from the DOC. “Ripeness ‘relates to
the degree to which the defined issues in a case are based on actual facts, rather than on abstract possibilities,
and are capable of being adjudicated on an adequately developed record.’” Dixon v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 56
N.E.3d 47, 52 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Ind. Dep’t of Envtl. Mgmt. v. Chem. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 643 N.E.2d
331, 336 (Ind. 1994)).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 92A05-1710-CR-2316 | October 18, 2018 Page 5 of 5