Oct 29 2013, 5:40 am
FOR PUBLICATION
APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
JASON E. MORALES GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Carlisle, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
ELLEN H. MEILAENDER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JASON E. MORALES, )
)
Appellant-Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) No. 82A05-1302-CR-72
)
STATE OF INDIANA )
)
Appellee-Respondent. )
APPEAL FROM THE VANDERBURGH CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Kelli E. Fink, Magistrate
Cause No. 82C01-0902-FB-150
October 29, 2013
OPINION GRANTING REHEARING – FOR PUBLICATION
BAKER, Judge
In this case, appellant-petitioner Jason E. Morales appealed the trial court’s
decision denying his motion for judicial review of the admissions criteria for the
Vanderburgh County Post-Conviction Forensic Diversion Program (the Program). This
Court concluded, in part, that “because Morales never applied for acceptance into the
Program and was thus never rejected from consideration by the Program,” there was no
final administrative action for the trial court to review, and Morales’s petition for judicial
review was not proper. Slip op. at 5.
Morales now petitions for rehearing, vehemently arguing that we mistakenly
determined that he had not applied for acceptance into the Program and concluded that
there was no final administrative action to review. Pet. p. 4. Morales contends that he
did apply to the Program through filing a motion in the trial court for placement in the
Program. The State has not filed a response.
Although Morales petitioned the trial court to be placed into the Program and the
probation department investigated whether he satisfied its criteria, this action is not the
same as Morales applying directly to the Program. Indeed, the Program did not deny
Morales’s admission. Rather, the Program informed the probation department that
Morales did not satisfy the criteria for acceptance. To Morales, the result is the same, but
before a court can review a final administrative action, there must be an agency action for
the court to review. Here, the agency administering the Program did not act, but merely
2
informed the probation department that based on the information that it had been
provided, Morales did not satisfy the necessary criteria for acceptance into the Program.
It appears that Morales really wanted a declaratory judgment that the Program’s
criteria excluded too many offenders, particularly sex offenders. There are procedures to
seek a declaratory judgment, but Morales did not pursue them.
Morales’s petition for rehearing is granted for the limited purpose of clarification
as to the specific issue discussed above. Otherwise, we stand by our previous opinion.
MATHIAS, J., concurs.
MAY, J., would deny the petition for rehearing.
3