Michael R. Jent, Appellant-Defendant,
State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
from the Allen Superior Court The Honorable David M. Zent,
Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D06-1711-PC-107
APPELLANT, PRO SE Michael R. Jent Pendleton, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General
of Indiana Monika Prekopa Talbot Supervising Deputy Attorney
General Indianapolis, Indiana
of the Case
Michael Jent ("Jent"), pro se, appeals the
post-conviction court's order denying his petition for
post-conviction relief. Concluding that Jent has failed to
show that the post-conviction court erred by denying his
petition for post-conviction relief, we affirm the
post-conviction court's judgment.
the post-conviction court erred by summarily denying
Jent's petition for post-conviction relief.
In November of 2002, the State charged Jent with Class A
misdemeanor invasion of privacy, Class A misdemeanor
interfering with the reporting of a crime, Class B
misdemeanor public intoxication, and Class B misdemeanor
disorderly conduct. The trial court held an initial hearing,
during which it advised Jent of his constitutional rights,
which he waived. At the hearing, Jent also pled guilty to all
four misdemeanors and was sentenced to 365 days of
Fifteen years later, in November of 2017, Jent filed a
petition for post- conviction relief ("PCR"). Jent
alleged that his guilty plea was not knowingly made, that
there was an insufficient factual basis to support his guilty
plea, and that he was denied the assistance of guilty plea
counsel. Jent further alleged that on the date of his
hearing, he "went to court while he was still
intoxicated." (App. 10). In its answer, the State argued
that Jent's issues were waived by his guilty plea. The
State also argued that his allegations did not create a
genuine issue of material fact because they did not allege
specific facts which, if proved, would suffice to establish
any grounds for post-conviction relief. The State further
asserted that Jent's claims were "barred by laches
in that he has unreasonably delayed in seeking
post-conviction relief." (App. 19).
On March 1, 2018, the post-conviction court summarily denied
relief, stating: "[t]he Court does not find merit to Mr.
Jent's claims. Additionally, Mr. Jent [pled] guilty in
the criminal case in question on November 27, 2002. The court
notes the unreasonable delay in filing the Petition."
(App. 7). Later, the court reporter filed an affidavit,
stating that she had been requested to prepare Jent's
guilty plea hearing transcript. She explained ...