Clayton S. Lindsey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 46A03-1701-CR-44

In 2009 Lindsey was charged with two counts of murder and one count of burglary; in 2011 he received concurrent 65-year sentences for murder and a consecutive 20-year burglary term (10 years suspended).
Lindsey completed education and vocational programs (GED and two other programs) and sought DOC program-completion time credits to be applied to his sentence.
DOC facility staff informed Lindsey that central office applies time credits and that credits are applied based on an offender’s earliest projected release date (EPRD).
Lindsey pursued DOC administrative appeals through facility classification, central office, and a post-conviction motion seeking immediate calculation/application of his earned credits. DOC responses indicated credits would be applied closer to his EPRD (2047); there were ~2,802 requests pending ahead of him.
The State moved for summary disposition with a sworn declaration from DOC’s Director of Sentence Computation confirming DOC’s procedure; the post-conviction court granted the State’s motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the post-conviction court erred in granting summary disposition on Lindsey’s request to have earned program credits applied immediately	Lindsey argued his earned credits should be applied now and that delay risks losing program eligibility and credits	State (DOC) argued it did not deny credits but follows policy of applying credits based on EPRD and will process Lindsey’s request closer to his 2047 release date; central office handles application and many requests are pending	Court affirmed summary disposition for the State: no genuine issue of material fact; DOC policy justifies delaying application until nearer EPRD; Lindsey’s new arguments waived on appeal

Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (pro se litigants held to same procedural standards as counsel)
Williams v. State, 690 N.E.2d 162 (Ind. 1987) (appellant must provide record showing alleged error)
Norris v. State, 896 N.E.2d 1149 (Ind. 2008) (post-conviction summary-disposition reviewed like civil summary-judgment)
Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (moving party bears burden to show no genuine issue of material fact in summary judgment)
FLM, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 973 N.E.2d 1167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (presumption of validity for trial court’s grant of summary judgment; appellant must show error)
Stevens v. State, 770 N.E.2d 739 (Ind. 2002) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)