Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jordan v. Knight

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

June 28, 2018

DAVID ANTHONY JORDAN, Petitioner,
v.
STAN KNIGHT, Warden, Plainfield Correctional Facility, [1] Respondent.

          ENTRY DISCUSSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

          TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         For the reasons explained in this Entry, petitioner David Anthony Jordan's petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied and the action dismissed with prejudice. In addition, the court finds that a certificate of appealability should not issue.

         The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

         I. Background

         The petitioner is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Plainfield Correctional Facility who seeks a writ of habeas corpus. He is currently serving a 43-year sentence for Class D felony criminal confinement, Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, two counts of Class B felony burglary, two counts of Class C felony stalking, Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief, and Class A misdemeanor battery. The petitioner's convictions are pursuant to a plea agreement entered on January 7, 2002. Jordan filed a direct appeal challenging his sentence. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed his sentence on December 2, 2002. See Jordan v. State, 48A05-0204-CR-148, 779 N.E.2d 984 (Ind.Ct.App. Dec. 2, 2002).

         Judge Newman denied Jordan's petition for post-conviction relief on January 3, 2007. Jordan appealed the denial without success. See Jordan v. State, 48A04-0703-PC-125, 2007 WL 3025689 (Ind.Ct.App. October 18, 2007).

Subsequently, on January 18, 2013, Judge Newman entered an order recusing himself from Jordan's case, and the Honorable Dennis Carroll (“Special Judge Carroll”) accepted jurisdiction as special judge on February 20, 2013. However, despite Judge Newman's recusal, he continued to hold hearings and issue orders in this case. For example, on September 15, 2014, Judge Newman held a hearing on Jordan's April 2014 motion to modify his sentence. Judge Newman granted Jordan's motion and ordered Jordan ”released from the Department of Corrections [sic] and placed in Work Release for the remainder of his sentence[, ]” which was sixteen plus years. (App. 40). Additionally, on July 20, 2015, Judge Newman held a hearing on Jordan's January 2015 request to modify his sentence from work release to probation. Judge Newman granted Jordan's motion to modify his sentence and placed him on probation for the balance of his 6, 126-day sentence. Jordan did not object to or otherwise challenge Judge Newman's authority to enter this order and place him on probation.
Three weeks later, on August 11, 2015, the State filed a notice of probation violation, alleging that Jordan had violated his probation by: (1) committing new criminal offenses: (2) failing to abstain from alcohol; and (3) violating his curfew. On August 31, 2015, Judge Newman held the initial hearing on Jordan's probation violation allegations, and Jordan denied the allegations. The transcript of this hearing is not part of the record on appeal. Nevertheless, there is no indication in the record that Jordan objected to Judge Newman's authority at this hearing.
On October 1, 2015, Special Judge Carroll presided over the evidentiary hearing. . . . Jordan did not object to the validity of the probation or the allegations. Nor did he object to Special Judge Carroll's authority to preside over the probation proceeding.
During the hearing, the State questioned Jordan's probation officer, Tony New (“Probation Officer New”), about Jordan's alleged violations. The State also had Probation Officer New explain the procedural anomaly that had occurred in the case. Specifically, Probation Officer New testified that, in July 2015, Judge Newman held a hearing and placed Jordan on probation even though Special Judge Carroll was the presiding judge over the case. Probation Officer New testified that “[a]s it turn[ed] out[, ] Judge Carroll was actually the Special Judge ... on the case at that time” but that apparently “[n]obody recalled that that had changed at some point before that.” (Tr. 43-44). When the State asked Probation Officer New, “But [Jordan's case] ha[d] ¶ 48D03 cause number and for whatever reason nobody realized that Judge Carroll had jurisdiction over this case and not Judge Newman?”, he replied that he “didn't realize it.” (Tr. 44). Jordan still did not object to the validity of the probation or Special Judge Carroll's authority to preside over the probation proceeding.
Special Judge Carroll determined that Jordan had violated his probation by committing another crime (battery, criminal confinement, and interference with the reporting of a crime), and he ordered Jordan to serve twelve (12) years of his previously suspended sentence.

Jordan v. State, Memorandum Opinion, 60 N.E.3d 1062, 1064-66 (Ind.Ct.App. 2016) (dkt. 14-5).

         Jordan appealed from the revocation of his probation, arguing that: (1) Special Judge Carroll lacked authority to impose sanctions for Jordan's probation violation; (2) the probation ordered by Judge Newman pursuant to the modification of Jordan's sentence was invalid, and; (3) Jordan's attorney was ineffective for failing to challenge the validity of the probation ordered by Judge Newman. On July 22, 2016, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation of Jordan's probation. Id. Jordan did not file a petition to transfer seeking discretionary review by the Indiana Supreme Court.

         Jordan filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the state trial court on August 11, 2016, in 48C03-1608-PC-29. See dkt. 14-7. Jordan argued that his probation revocation should be set aside because there was insufficient evidence to conclude that a crime was committed because the associated criminal charges were ultimately dismissed. On October 31, 2016, the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.