Ivan Vazquez v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 476
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Vazquez pled guilty in 2004 to class A felony dealing in cocaine and class A felony conspiracy to commit dealing in cocaine; trial court imposed a long sentence, affirmed on appeal.
- Vazquez began serving a multi-decade sentence in 2005.
- Between 2010 and 2014 Vazquez filed three sentence-modification petitions, all denied by the trial court.
- In November 2014 Vazquez also filed a motion to correct errors, which the trial court denied.
- The Indiana legislature amended Indiana Code section 35-38-1-17 to expressly authorize retroactive application, effective May 5, 2015.
- The trial court dismissed Vazquez’s latest petition as untimely and beyond the filing limits; the amended statute governs timing and filing limits, but provides no relief in this case, and the court affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of the amended statute | Vazquez argues the amended statute applies retroactively. | State asserts the amendment applies to Vazquez since pending on appeal. | Amended statute applies retroactively to Vazquez. |
| Relief under the amended statute | Amendment should provide relief for Vazquez. | Amendment does not provide relief where petitions are untimely and exceed filing limits. | Amendment applies but grants no relief; petition properly dismissed. |
| Timeliness and filing limits under amended statute | N/A | Petition was untimely and exceeded the 365-day and two-petition limits. | Trial court properly dismissed the petition under the amended statute. |
| Judicial bias and jurisdiction claims | Vazquez alleged bias and lack of jurisdiction due to perceived changes in venue. | No evidence of bias or lack of jurisdiction; no venue change occurred. | No reversible bias or jurisdiction defects found; claims insufficient. |
| Retroactivity implications for Vazquez's appeal | N/A | Retroactivity governs timing but not entitlement to relief here. | Retroactivity applied; relief denied due to timing and filing limits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stellwag v. State, 854 N.E.2d 64 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (impartial judge due process; presumption of bias must be rebutted by evidence)
- Smith v. State, 770 N.E.2d 818 (Ind. 2002) (presumption of judicial impartiality; actual bias required to overcome)
- Hobbs v. State, 26 N.E.3d 983 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (statutory retroactivity of sentencing-modification provisions)