Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 12 2013, 5:35 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
DEREK LEE MORRIS GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Bunker Hill, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
RICHARD C. WEBSTER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
DEREK LEE MORRIS, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1304-CR-367
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Amy J. Barbar, Judge
Cause No. 49G02-0511-FA-193247
November 12, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MATHIAS, Judge
After completing four courses while incarcerated, Derek Lee Morris (“Morris”),
was denied educational credit time by the Indiana Department of Correction. Morris
thereupon filed a petition for credit time with the trial court, which was denied. Morris
appeals and argues that the trial court erred and abused its discretion by denying his
petition.
We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
Pursuant to Ind. Code Section 35-50-6-3.3(b) a person serving a sentence in the
Indiana Department of Correction may request and receive credit toward his sentence for
completing approved educational programs. Morris claims that he completed four such
courses while serving time in the Indiana Department of Correction. Morris’s record on
appeal contains four certificates: work experience certificate, celebrate recovery program,
reclaiming reality program, and making a life change program.
Apparently, Morris requested, but was denied credit by the Indiana Department of
Correction. Morris then filed a Petition for Credit Time Not Previously Awarded by the
Department of Correction. The trial court denied Morris’s petition without a hearing.
Morris now appeals.
Decision and Discussion
Morris argues the trial court erred and abused its discretion by denying his petition
for educational credit time. However, Morris fails to present a record that includes the
trial court’s order denying his claim, or any evidence from the Indiana Department of
Correction denying his request for credit. “It is the appellant’s duty to present this court
2
with an adequate record on appeal. Where he fails to do so, the issue is deemed waived.”
Adams v. State, 539 N.E. 2d 985, 987 (Ind. Ct. App., 1989). Indiana Appellate Rule 50
(B)(1) states that, “The appellant's Appendix in a Criminal Appeal shall contain a table of
contents and copies of the following documents, if they exist:… (e) any record material
relied on in the brief unless the material is already included in the Transcript;…” Because
Morris fails to present a complete record, his argument is waived.
Waiver notwithstanding, Morris presents no claim upon which relief can be
granted. Because Morris does not claim a facial sentencing error, his petition must be
treated as a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Ind. Post–Conviction Rule 1.
Indiana Code Section 35-50-6-3.3 provides in relevant part that a person is entitled to
educational credit time if the person:
(1) is in credit Class I;
(2) has demonstrated a pattern consistent with rehabilitation; and
(3) successfully completes the requirements to obtain
...
(C) A certificate of completion of a literacy and basic life skills program
approved by the department of correction.
The intent behind the educational credit time statute is to enhance rehabilitation by
providing incentive to further one’s education while incarcerated. McGee v. State, 790
N.E.2d 1067, 1070 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied. But when educational credit time
is denied, a person must exhaust his administrative remedies within the Indiana
Department of Correction before appealing to a court because determinations altering
3
credit time are the responsibility of the Indiana Department of Correction. Members v.
State, 851 N.E.2d 979, 983 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). Our record on appeal reflects that
Morris did not present any evidence in the trial court that he has exhausted his remedies
within the Indiana Department of Correction.
Conclusion
For all of these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Morris’s petition for
the credit time he seeks.
Affirmed.
NAJAM, J., and BROWN, J., concur.
4