Charles Freeland v. Keith Butts (mem. dec.), 33A01-1608-MI-1986

Background

In 2003 Freeland was convicted of child molesting (aggregate 28-year sentence); released to probation in 2009 but later had probation revoked and served the executed portion; parole for the molest conviction began April 27, 2015.
While under supervision he incurred additional convictions: fraud (2011) and failure to register (2012), the latter served consecutively after completing the molest executed term; he completed the registration sentence on August 23, 2015.
As a condition of parole for the molest conviction, Freeland was required to complete sex-offender treatment and avoid contact with children; he admitted parole violations on May 12, 2016 (treatment removal and contact with a minor).
Freeland filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing he was not on parole when the Parole Board revoked him because his molest sentence had been effectively "turned over" or discharged while he served the consecutive registration sentence.
The trial court construed the petition as one for post-conviction relief and granted the State’s motion for summary disposition; on appeal the court reviewed the habeas petition on the merits.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: the record shows Freeland’s molest sentence was not discharged or "turned over," he was on parole as of April 27, 2015, and therefore properly subject to revocation; the revocation paperwork misstated the parole start date and was remanded for correction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the habeas petition was misclassified as post-conviction relief and improperly decided by summary disposition	Freeland: his claim is a habeas challenge to unlawful detention, not post-conviction relief	State: trial court properly construed petition as post-conviction and used summary disposition	Court declined to decide classification error as dispositive and reached merits; addressed habeas claim on appeal
Whether Freeland’s molest sentence was "turned over"/discharged while he served a consecutive registration sentence, so he was not on parole when revoked	Freeland: DOC/Parole Board held parole in abeyance/turned over the molest sentence while he served the registration sentence, so he could not later be paroled and revoked for that sentence	State: record shows parole was not suspended or turned over; Freeland served part of his parole concurrently while serving the consecutive sentence	Held: No discharge/turnover; parole commenced April 27, 2015, so revocation on May 12, 2016 was valid
Whether Meeker controls to preclude later revival of a sentence absent explicit "turned over" language	Freeland: analogizes to Meeker to argue parole was discharged and could not be reinstated	State: Meeker requires explicit evidence of a Parole Board intent to "turn over"/discharge; no such evidence here	Held: Meeker distinguishable; here OIS and re-entry note show parole was not turned over or in abeyance
Whether administrative/parole records contained an incorrect parole start date requiring remedy	Freeland: documents show he was discharged Aug 23, 2015; revocation sheet notes parole start Aug 23, 2015	State: administrative records indicate parole began April 27, 2015	Held: Court affirms revocation but remands to correct the revocation statement to reflect April 27, 2015 as parole start date

Key Cases Cited

Meeker v. Indiana Parole Bd., 794 N.E.2d 1105 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (held Parole Board’s use of phrase "turned over" amounted to discharge of sentence and prevented later reinstatement)
Metcalf v. State, 852 N.E.2d 585 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (discussed Meeker and construed "turned over" language against the State)
Mills v. State, 840 N.E.2d 354 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (rejected discharge argument where parole was served while petitioner concurrently served a consecutive sentence)
Partlow v. Superintendent, Miami Corr. Facility, 756 N.E.2d 978 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (court may reach habeas merits despite misclassification of petition)