from the Henry Circuit Court The Honorable Kit C. Dean Crane,
Judge Trial Court Cause No. 33C02-1611-MI-120.
APPELLANT PRO SE Jeffrey Arnold New Castle, Indiana.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General
of Indiana Andrea E. Rahman Deputy Attorney General
Jeffrey Arnold appeals pro se from the denial of his petition
for writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, Arnold argues that the
trial court erred in rejecting his argument that his
detention following the revocation of his parole was illegal
because his parole had been discharged prior to the alleged
& Procedural History
The relevant facts are not in dispute. On November 17, 2005,
Arnold was sentenced to ten years in prison for sexual
misconduct with a minor under cause number 57C01-0506-FB-37
(Cause 37). On December 15, 2005, Arnold was sentenced to six
months for resisting law enforcement in cause number
57C01-0601-FD-01 (Cause 01). On January 18, 2006, Arnold was
sentenced to twenty years in prison for battery under cause
number 57C01-0412-FB-56 (Cause 56). The sentences in Causes
37 and 56 were to be served concurrently, while the sentence
in Cause 01 was to be served consecutively to Causes 37 and
Arnold was released to parole status in Cause 37 on December
17, 2013, but remained incarcerated on Cause 56. Arnold was
released to parole status in Cause 56 on April 29, 2014, at
which time he began serving the consecutive six-month
sentence in Cause 01. Arnold was released from prison on
parole on July 29, 2014, and his sentence under Cause 01 was
discharged on October 28, 2014. In February 2015, warrants
were issued for Arnold's arrest under Causes 37 and 56
for an alleged parole violation. Arnold's parole was
subsequently revoked, and he was ordered to serve the
remainder of his time under Causes 37 and 56.
Arnold filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus on
November 28, 2016, in which he argued that his detention was
illegal because his parole had been discharged prior to the
violation on which the revocations were premised.
Specifically, he argued that his terms of parole in Causes 37
and 56 were discharged on April 28, 2014, when he began
serving his sentence under Cause 01. In response, Warden
Keith Butts of the New Castle Correctional Facility filed a
motion for summary disposition, treating Arnold's filing
as a petition for post-conviction relief rather than a
petition for writ of habeas corpus. On January 31, 2017, the
trial court granted Warden Butts's motion for summary
disposition and denied Arnold's request for relief.
Arnold now appeals.
As an initial matter, we note that the trial court construed
Arnold's petition as a petition for post-conviction
relief rather than habeas corpus, and therefore entered
summary disposition under Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g).
Arnold argues in a footnote that this was error, but he does
not ask us to remand for a hearing. Because Arnold asks us to
decide this case on the merits, we need not consider whether
the trial court properly determined that Arnold's
petition was subject to summary disposition. See Hobbs v.
Butts, 83 N.E.3d 1246, 1249 (Ind.Ct.App. 2017).
The parties in this case do not dispute any factual events;
rather, they disagree as to whether those facts resulted in
the discharge of Arnold's sentences in Causes 37 and 56
prior to the revocation of his parole. Thus, we are ...