Derek Carter v. Keith Butts, Warden of the New Castle Correctional Facility (mem. dec.)
33A01-1707-MI-1668
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Derek Carter was serving a 20-year sentence for Class B felony robbery and was mandatorily paroled in February 2016 after signing a conditional parole agreement that prohibited illegal drug use and required approved residence.
- While on parole Carter tested positive for marijuana (May 20, 2016), admitted to using marijuana, and was later found living at an unapproved address; parole staff also found a bag of marijuana in the residence during an unannounced visit.
- Carter was charged with testing positive for marijuana, possession of marijuana, and unauthorized change of residence; he waived a preliminary hearing and waived 48-hour notice of his parole revocation hearing.
- At the parole hearing Carter denied the residence violation but admitted marijuana use; the Parole Board found violations for both marijuana use and unauthorized residence, revoked parole, and assessed the balance of his sentence.
- Carter filed a writ of habeas corpus (treated by the trial court as a petition for post-conviction relief) claiming untimely notice and that he was denied the opportunity to present certain evidence and call a witness; the trial court granted summary disposition for the State and Carter appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Carter's Argument | Butts/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to revoke parole | Carter: evidence insufficient to prove parole violation | State: Carter admitted marijuana use; admission suffice | Court: Admission that he used marijuana is sufficient; revocation justified |
| Denial of opportunity to present evidence/witness | Carter: was prevented from introducing evidence and calling/questioning witness about unauthorized residence | State: Parole Board discretion; any exclusion harmless given admission | Court: Exclusion, if error, was harmless because admission of drug use independently justified revocation |
| Timeliness of notice to parole hearing | Carter: received untimely notice, violating due process | State: Carter waived 48-hour notice before hearing | Court: Not dispositive; waiver and admission rendered any notice claim harmless |
| Standard of review for summary disposition | Carter: (implicit) factual disputes preclude summary disposition | State: Summary disposition appropriate as matter of law given undisputed admission | Court: Reviewed de novo; no genuine issue of material fact — summary disposition affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Norris v. State, 896 N.E.2d 1149 (Ind. 2008) (standard for appellate review of summary disposition in post-conviction proceedings)
- Allen v. State, 791 N.E.2d 748 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (resolving doubts in non-movant's favor on summary judgment-type review)
- Komyatti v. State, 931 N.E.2d 411 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (procedural principles for summary disposition review)
- Hubbard v. State, 683 N.E.2d 618 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (single condition violation can justify revocation)
- Hawkins v. Jenkins, 374 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. 1978) (Parole Board discretion not subject to court supervision)
- Montgomery v. State, 21 N.E.3d 846 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (errors in admission/exclusion of evidence are harmless unless they affect substantial rights)
- Fleener v. State, 656 N.E.2d 1140 (Ind. 1995) (harmless error principle in evidentiary rulings)
- Williams v. State, 714 N.E.2d 644 (Ind. 1999) (probable impact test for harmless error)