John Chupp v. Wendy Knight, Superintendent of Correctional Industrial Facility (mem. dec.)
48A04-1610-MI-2381
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 20, 2017Background
- John Chupp, serving an aggregate 70-year sentence for 1982 convictions (burglary, robbery, criminal confinement); convictions affirmed on direct appeal in Chupp v. State, 509 N.E.2d 835 (Ind. 1987).
- In July 2016 Chupp filed a verified petition for writ of habeas corpus claiming the State unlawfully denied him a transfer into the STOP program and failed to resolve classification appeals related to placement.
- In August 2016 Chupp filed an amended petition alleging denial of medical care and refusal to provide needed medication and surgery.
- The State moved to dismiss under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Chupp did not allege grounds for immediate release or unlawful detention.
- The trial court granted the motion and denied Chupp’s subsequent motions (default judgment; motion to correct error), reasoning neither petition showed the detention was unlawful or that Chupp was entitled to immediate release.
- Chupp appealed; the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo the 12(B)(1) dismissal on the paper record and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of transfer/classification appeals gives rise to habeas relief | Chupp: denial of transfer and unresolved classification appeals make his detention unlawful | State: these complaints are collateral matters that do not challenge legality of detention or seek immediate release | Held: Dismissal affirmed — transfer/classification claims do not allege unlawful custody or entitlement to immediate release |
| Whether denial of medical care supports habeas relief | Chupp: denial of medical attention and surgery renders detention unlawful | State: claims about medical care do not challenge the lawfulness of confinement or request immediate release | Held: Dismissal affirmed — medical-care allegations are collateral and not a basis for habeas relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Chupp v. State, 509 N.E.2d 835 (Ind. 1987) (direct appeal affirming Chupp's convictions and sentence)
- Hardley v. State, 893 N.E.2d 740 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (habeas corpus tests lawfulness of custody and cannot be used to resolve collateral matters)
- GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397 (Ind. 2001) (de novo review applies when dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is based solely on the paper record)
- Partlow v. Superintendent, Miami Correctional Facility, 756 N.E.2d 978 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (no habeas jurisdiction where petitioner is serving under proper commitment and not entitled to immediate release)
- Hawkins v. Jenkins, 374 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. 1978) (one is entitled to habeas corpus only if entitled to immediate release from unlawful custody)