Eric D. Smith v. State of Indiana
38 N.E.3d 218
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2000 Smith received two traffic infraction tickets (disobeying a traffic signal; speeding), failed to appear/pay, and fines were entered against him.
- In February–March 2014 Smith moved under Ind. Trial Rule 60(B)(8) for relief from judgment, claiming he only recently learned of the cases, was serving in the U.S. Army at the relevant times, and that someone had stolen his car/ID (identity theft/impersonation). The trial court denied relief.
- In March 2014 Smith filed petitions for post-conviction relief asserting lack of notice, lack of counsel, innocence, and identity theft; the court treated the infractions as civil and denied relief as P-C relief is for crimes.
- Smith appealed both denials pro se. The Court of Appeals reviews Rule 60(B) denials for abuse of discretion and post-conviction denials under the applicable post-conviction standards.
- The court concluded Smith failed to show (1) timely filing/reasonable explanation for delay and (2) a meritorious defense supported by admissible evidence (military records did not verify his whereabouts), so Rule 60(B)(8) relief was not warranted; and post-conviction relief was unavailable because traffic infractions are civil, not criminal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying Rule 60(B)(8) relief | Smith: filed within a reasonable time; extraordinary circumstances (military service, identity theft); meritorious defense of mistaken identity/innocence | State: delay unexplained and prejudicial; Smith offered only self-serving assertions without corroboration | Denied — no meritorious defense shown and no exceptional circumstances justifying relief; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether post-conviction relief was available | Smith: Post-Conviction Rule 1 applies; he was denied notice, counsel, and is innocent | State: traffic infractions are civil, not crimes, so Post-Conviction Rule 1 does not apply | Denied — infractions are civil; post-conviction relief not available |
Key Cases Cited
- Outback Steakhouse of Fla., Inc. v. Markley, 856 N.E.2d 65 (Ind. 2006) (standard of review for Trial Rule 60 motions)
- Wagler v. West Boggs Sewer Dist., Inc., 980 N.E.2d 363 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard and deference to trial court)
- Dillard v. Dillard, 889 N.E.2d 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (movant bears burden to show relief is necessary and just under Rule 60(B))
- Brimhall v. Brewster, 864 N.E.2d 1148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (subsection (8) residual powers require exceptional circumstances)
- Reed v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1189 (Ind. 2006) (post-conviction rules provide narrow collateral remedy for criminal convictions)
- Rosenbaum v. State, 930 N.E.2d 72 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (traffic infractions are civil, proven by preponderance)