Antwoin Richmond v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
33A01-1707-MI-1537
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Richmond pled guilty to class A felony child molesting (Dec. 2007) and received a 20-year fixed term.
- He was released to parole on Feb. 14, 2013; parole was revoked after an April 2016 warrant and he was returned to serve the remainder of his fixed term.
- In Oct. 2016 Richmond filed a pro se habeas petition arguing his pre-parole earned good-time credit should reduce his fixed sentence after parole revocation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the State, holding good-time credit determines parole eligibility but does not reduce a fixed term.
- Richmond filed a second pro se habeas petition (Mar. 2017) repeating the credit-time claim and adding a due-process argument about notice/hearing for forfeiture; the trial court granted summary judgment for the State as barred by res judicata.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the second petition raised the same claim (or one that could have been raised) and res judicata barred successive habeas challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata applies to successive habeas petitions | Res judicata inapplicable to habeas; prior denial doesn't bar new petition | Res judicata can bar repeated habeas petitions based on same or not materially different facts | Court: Res judicata can apply to habeas when second petition rests on same or could-have-been-raised claims; it applied here |
| Whether the second petition raised a different claim (due process) or the same claim about credit-time | Second petition adds due-process challenge to forfeiture of earned credits, so it is a new claim | The due-process argument could and should have been raised earlier; substantively the dispute is the same | Court: Claims are the same or could have been litigated earlier; claim preclusion bars the second petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Walker, 655 N.E.2d 47 (Ind. 1995) (good-time credit determines parole eligibility and does not reduce the fixed sentence)
- Love v. State, 22 N.E.3d 663 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (res judicata prevents repetitive litigation of same dispute)
- Smith v. Lake Cty., 863 N.E.2d 464 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (elements of claim preclusion described)
- Adams v. Eads, 266 N.E.2d 610 (Ind. 1971) (prior habeas denial may bar subsequent petitions based on same or not materially different facts)
- Shoemaker v. Dowd, 115 N.E.2d 443 (Ind. 1953) (successive habeas writs cannot be used to re-litigate matters already decided)