Paul J. Pacheco v. Keith Butts, Superintendent of the New Castle Correctional Facility (mem .dec.)
33A01-1702-MI-395
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Pacheco was convicted of child molesting and sentenced to eight years (2,922 days) on December 17, 2013.
- While incarcerated he accrued 1,246 days actual time served, 1,246 days good-time credit (Class I), and 215 days educational credit; credits permitted his release on parole March 3, 2016.
- After 160 days on parole, Pacheco was arrested for a parole violation; his parole was revoked September 15, 2016.
- At revocation the IDOC calculated 1,516 days remained on his fixed term; his projected new parole-release date is September 6, 2018 (assuming future earned credits reduce the remainder by half).
- Pacheco filed a pro se petition titled a writ of habeas corpus arguing his accumulated credits equaled the full 2,922-day term and thus he was entitled to immediate discharge rather than parole; the trial court treated the filing as a postconviction petition and summarily dismissed it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether credit time reduces the fixed term so Pacheco was discharged March 3, 2016 | Pacheco: his actual time + good-time + educational credits equaled 2,922 days, so sentence was served and he should have been discharged rather than paroled | Butts/State: credit time only affects release date (for parole), it does not reduce the fixed term imposed by the sentencing court | Held: Credit time does not shorten the fixed term; it only advances parole/release date. Pacheco was not entitled to immediate discharge |
| Whether parole release was improper because Pacheco is a sex offender | Pacheco: IDOC was prohibited from releasing him on parole under statutes restricting certain minimum-security programs for sex offenders | Butts/State: parole is distinct from the excluded programs; no statute bars parole for sex offenders | Held: No statutory prohibition on releasing sex offenders to parole; Pacheco’s argument fails |
| Whether the petition should be treated as habeas vs. postconviction relief | Pacheco: framed petition as writ of habeas corpus | Butts/State: relief sought (claim sentence expired) is cognizable under postconviction rules; petition can be treated as postconviction petition | Held: Trial court properly construed petition as postconviction and resolved on summary disposition |
| Whether parole revocation requires recalculation of remaining fixed term | Pacheco: implied challenge to calculation | Butts/State: upon revocation, offender imprisoned for remainder of fixed term; credits already afforded were the benefit received | Held: Upon revocation the remaining fixed term (1,516 days) was properly assessed and projected parole date properly recalculated |
Key Cases Cited
- Samuels v. State, 849 N.E.2d 689 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (postconviction rule is alternative to habeas when sentence-related relief is sought)
- Norris v. State, 896 N.E.2d 1149 (Ind. 2008) (standard of review for summary disposition in postconviction proceedings)
- Randolph v. Buss, 956 N.E.2d 38 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (credit time subtracts from release date; does not reduce fixed term)
- Miller v. Walker, 655 N.E.2d 47 (Ind. 1995) (distinguishing credit time application from reduction of sentence)
- Boyd v. Broglin, 519 N.E.2d 541 (Ind. 1988) (release on parole is distinct from discharge after service of fixed term)