Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), Jul 30 2013, 7:39 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
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:
GARY WAYNE SHORTT GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Plainfield, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
RICHARD C. WEBSTER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
GARY WAYNE SHORTT, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 73A01-1212-CR-590
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE SHELBY SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Jack A. Tandy, Judge
Cause No. 73D01-0801-FC-2
July 30, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY, Judge
Gary Wayne Shortt appeals the denial of his Motion for Earned Credit Time and to
Correct Error in Sentence. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 19, 2008, the trial court sentenced Shortt to seven years, with four years
executed and three on probation, for Class C felony operating a vehicle after forfeiture for
life.1 As a condition of his probation, Shortt was to serve 270 days on home detention.
On March 20, 2012, the State filed a petition to revoke Shortt’s probation and Shortt
admitted he violated probation. The trial court ordered Shortt to serve the remainder of his
sentence, two years, consecutive to a sentence in Johnson County.
On December 5, 2012, Shortt, pro se, filed a Motion for Earned Credit Time and to
Correct Error in Sentence. He alleged the trial court should have given him 270 days credit
time for the time he was serving home detention as a condition of his probation. The trial
court denied Shortt’s motion.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
We first note Shortt proceeds in his appeal pro se. It is well settled that pro se
litigants are held to the same standard as licensed attorneys. Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338,
344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. They also are required to follow procedural rules.
Id.
Shortt argues the trial court erred when it denied him 270 days credit for the time he
allegedly spent on home detention as part of his probation. “It is Appellant’s duty to present
1
Ind. Code § 9-30-10-17.
2
an adequate record showing the alleged error. Where he fails to do so, the issue is deemed
waived.” Thompson v. State, 761 N.E.2d 467, 471 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). Shortt has not
provided anything in the record to demonstrate how many of the 270 ordered days he
actually served on home detention. Therefore, the issue is waived. See id. Accordingly, we
affirm the trial court’s denial of his motion.
Affirmed.
BAKER, J., and MATHIAS, J., concur.
3