from the Putnam Superior Court of Appeals Case No.
67D01-1506-MI-117 Honorable Charles D. Bridges, Judge.
APPELLANT PRO SE Tyrone Grayson Greencastle, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Gregory F. Zoeller Attorney General of
Indiana Frances Barrow Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis,
VAIDIK, CHIEF JUDGE.
Indiana Parole Board alleged that Tyrone Grayson violated his
parole by committing a new offense. The parole board alleged
that Grayson was on parole for one particular sentence when
he committed the new offense. After Grayson's parole was
revoked, he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus
alleging that he was not on parole for that sentence when he
committed the new offense. Realizing a mistake in the
records, the Indiana Department of Correction fixed the
records to show that Grayson was on parole for a
different sentence when he committed the new
offense. Without a new parole-revocation hearing, the State
submitted to the trial court corrected records to support
Grayson's parole revocation, and the trial
court-construing Grayson's habeas application as a
petition for post-conviction relief-found that Grayson was
not entitled to relief.
Because parolees charged with violations of parole are within
the protection of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, we find that Grayson was entitled to an
opportunity to be heard on the allegation that he violated
parole for the correct sentence. We therefore reverse.
and Procedural History
October 2002, Grayson was sentenced to twenty years for
attempted robbery and ten years for unlawful possession of a
firearm by a serious violent felon in Marion Superior Court
in Cause No. 49G01-0108-CF-164749. The trial court ordered
the sentences to be served consecutively. Appellee's App.
p. 9. A couple months later, in December 2002, Grayson was
sentenced to four years in Marion Superior Court in Cause No.
49G04-9612-CF-195611 for violating his probation for an
unrelated conviction. Id. at 11. The parties agree
that this sentence was to be served consecutive to the
sentence in Cause No. 164749.
Grayson was released to parole on July 18, 2013. Id.
at 12. He committed a new offense-unlawful possession of a
firearm by a serious violent felon-in February 2014, and the
Marion Superior Court sentenced him to twelve years in Cause
No. 49G20-1402-FB-9085. Id. at 13. The parole board
alleged that Grayson violated his parole for his twenty-year
sentence for attempted robbery in Cause No. 164749 for
committing this new offense. Id. at 18
("Notification of Parole Violation Hearing"), 19
("Evidence Relied Upon and Findings of Fact"
listing "Paroling Crime/Sentence" as
"Attempted Robbery, B Felony, 20 Years"). Grayson
waived his preliminary hearing, and a parole-revocation
hearing was held. The parole board revoked Grayson's
parole and "assessed the balance of [his] sentence"
on his twenty-year sentence for attempted robbery to be
served before he began his twelve-year sentence for the new
offense. Id. at 17 ("Notice/Disposition By
June 2015, Grayson, pro se, filed an application for a writ
of habeas corpus in Putnam Superior Court (the county where
he was incarcerated), which the trial court construed as a
petition for post-conviction relief. Grayson alleged that his
parole was improperly revoked because he should have already
been discharged from parole for his twenty-year sentence in
Cause No. 164749 when he committed the new offense in
February 2014. The State filed a response and a motion to
dismiss or for summary disposition. Specifically, the State
acknowledged that Grayson was discharged from parole for his
twenty-year sentence in Cause No. 164749 in June 2010-well
before he committed the new offense in February 2014.
Id. at 5. However, the State claimed that Grayson
was on parole for his ten-year sentence in Cause No. 164749
when he committed the new offense, even though the parole
board had alleged that Grayson was on parole for his
twenty-year sentence. See id. at 19. The State
conceded that there was "some confusion in the
records" but assured the trial court that the
"paperwork was corrected once [the application for a
writ of habeas corpus] was filed" and that the corrected
paperwork showed that Grayson was indeed on parole for his
ten-year sentence when he committed the new offense.
Id. at 6. The trial court granted the State's
motion to dismiss and for summary disposition as follows:
Construed as a petition for post-conviction relief
challenging the revocation of parole . . ., Grayson is not
entitled to relief because [the State has] demonstrated
through the attachments to [its] response and motion that he
was in fact on parole at the time he violated that parole by
committing a new crime.
Appellant's App. p. 32. Grayson filed a motion to correct
errors, which the trial court denied.
Grayson, pro ...