Jay F. Vermillion v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
84A04-1604-PC-900
Ind. Ct. App. Recl.Feb 23, 2017Background
- Jay Vermillion was convicted of murder and related offenses; his direct appeal was affirmed by the Indiana Supreme Court.
- Vermillion filed multiple post-conviction relief (PCR) petitions in Vigo County Superior Court; local rules transferred the matters from Division 3 to Division 1.
- The post-conviction court issued two notices under Indiana Trial Rule 41(E) warning dismissal for inactivity, set hearings, and later entered dismissals when Vermillion did not appear.
- The chronological case summary did not show that the Rule 41(E) dismissal hearing was actually conducted before the October 2015 dismissal.
- Vermillion moved to reinstate and later sought relief under Trial Rule 60(B), arguing the dismissal was void because Division 1 lacked jurisdiction; the post-conviction court denied relief.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the court abused its discretion by dismissing without holding the required 41(E) hearing and whether the division transfer deprived jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under Trial Rule 41(E) required an actual hearing before dismissal | Vermillion: court dismissed without holding the required 41(E) hearing, so dismissal was improper | State: scheduling a hearing may suffice in some circumstances; a hearing need not always be held | Reversed — controlling precedent requires a hearing; remanded for a 41(E) hearing or reinstatement |
| Whether Division 1 lacked jurisdiction to decide Vermillion’s PCR petition after transfer | Vermillion: only Division 3 (where convicted) had authority; dismissal is void if decided by another judge | State: local rules permissibly transferred the case; superior courts have concurrent jurisdiction | Affirmed transfer validity — Division 1 had jurisdiction; 60(B) challenge fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Vermillion v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind. 1999) (direct appeal affirming convictions)
- Wright v. Miller, 989 N.E.2d 324 (Ind. 2013) (hearing requirement for dismissals under Rule 41(E) emphasized)
- Rumfelt v. Himes, 438 N.E.2d 980 (Ind. 1982) (Trial Rule 41(E) requires a hearing before dismissal)
- Caruthers v. State, 58 N.E.3d 207 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (discussing that 41(E) contemplates an actual hearing, not merely scheduling)
- Baker Mach., Inc. v. Superior Canopy Corp., 883 N.E.2d 818 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (explaining purpose of 41(E) and courts’ administrative discretion)
- Belcaster v. Miller, 785 N.E.2d 1164 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (Rule 41(E) enforces plaintiff diligence; dismissal is an enforcement mechanism)
- Am. Family Ins. Co. ex rel. Shafer v. Beazer Homes Indiana, LLP, 929 N.E.2d 853 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (dismissing with prejudice is an extreme remedy and disfavored)