Johnny Ray Jenkins v. Keith Butts (mem. dec.)
33A05-1703-MI-478
| Ind. Ct. App. | Sep 6, 2017Background
- Johnny Ray Jenkins was sentenced to 12 years in 2011 and released on parole in December 2015.
- Parole agent alleged failures to report, unauthorized move, and drug use; parole board revoked parole after a July 2016 hearing.
- Jenkins pleaded guilty to the drug-positive tests (marijuana, methamphetamine, morphine); board found the other violations proved and ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence.
- In August 2016 Jenkins filed a petition styled as a writ of habeas corpus seeking immediate release, while acknowledging drug use but asserting he had not violated parole.
- The State moved to dismiss under Trial Rule 12(B)(6); the trial court granted dismissal.
- On appeal the court treated the filing as a post-conviction petition and reviewed denial under Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(f) de novo, concluding dismissal was proper because Jenkins admitted conduct constituting a parole violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jenkins could obtain relief after admitting conduct constituting a parole violation | Jenkins argued he had not violated parole and sought release despite admitting "drug usage" | State argued Jenkins’s own admissions foreclose relief and the petition fails to state a claim | Court held admission of drug use (a parole violation) conclusively showed no relief was available; dismissal affirmed |
| Proper procedural vehicle for challenging parole revocation | Jenkins framed petition as habeas corpus seeking immediate release | State and court treated challenge as post-conviction relief under Post-Conviction Rule 1 | Court treated petition as post-conviction and reviewed under Rule 1(4)(f) (judgment-on-pleadings standard) |
| Standard of review for denial under Rule 1(4)(f) | Jenkins sought reversal | State supported dismissal under pleadings | Court applied de novo review, accepting well-pled facts as true and requiring a legal issue of possible merit; found none |
| Whether alleged double jeopardy or due process claims warranted relief | Jenkins claimed double jeopardy for being sanctioned administratively then punished by revocation; also argued due process on appeal | State noted lack of authority for double jeopardy claim and that due process claim was not raised below | Court declined to address due process (not pled); rejected double jeopardy as unsupported in petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Mills v. State, 840 N.E.2d 354 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (discussing habeas as a route to challenge parole revocation)
- Hannis v. Deuth, 816 N.E.2d 872 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (same)
- Hardley v. State, 893 N.E.2d 740 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (post-conviction petition is proper vehicle to challenge parole revocation)
- Receveur v. Buss, 919 N.E.2d 1235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (confirming post-conviction process for parole revocation challenges)
- Allen v. State, 791 N.E.2d 748 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (analysis treating dismissal under Rule 1(4)(f) like a judgment on the pleadings)
- KS&E Sports v. Runnels, 72 N.E.3d 892 (Ind. 2017) (de novo review standard for judgment-on-pleadings)