Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), Jul 03 2013, 7:16 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:
WILLIAM TEMPLE GREGORY F. ZOELLER
New Castle, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
KATHY BRADLEY
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
WILLIAM TEMPLE, )
)
Appellant, )
)
vs. ) No. 33A01-1211-MI-533
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee. )
APPEAL FROM THE HENRY CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Kit C. Dean Crane, Judge
Cause No. 33C02-1209-MI-110
July 3, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NAJAM, Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
William Temple appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his “Petition for Writ of
State Habeas Corpus Relief” following the revocation of his parole. Temple appears to
challenge the validity of the revocation of his parole. We address a single dispositive
issue on appeal, namely, whether Temple’s petition for writ of habeas corpus should be
treated as a petition for post-conviction relief.
We reverse and remand with instructions.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 2007, Temple was sentenced to ten years on a conviction of child molesting, as
a Class C felony, and he was released on parole in January 2011. In October 2011,
Temple was arrested and charged with failure to register as a sex offender. And in
February 2012, Temple pleaded guilty to failure to register as a sex offender and was
sentenced accordingly.
Thereafter, on March 23, Temple verified that he had received a form entitled
“Notification of Parole Violation Hearing,” which notified him that he was accused of
violating the following rule of his Parole Release Agreement: “#7 Criminal Conduct.”
Appellant’s App. at 1. Temple pleaded guilty at the hearing on March 29, and his parole
was revoked.
On September 6, 2012, Temple, pro se, filed a “Petition for Writ of State Habeas
Corpus Relief” against the Superintendent of the New Castle Correctional Facility
wherein he sought “immediate discharge from arbitrary revocation of parole, and all
other just and proper relief in the premises.” Id. at 16. The Superintendent filed a motion
2
to dismiss the petition, and Temple filed a motion for default judgment. On October 24,
the trial court granted the motion to dismiss, and Temple filed a motion to correct error.
The trial court denied Temple’s motion to correct error. This appeal ensued.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
In his petition, Temple requested habeas corpus relief. “The purpose of a writ of
habeas corpus is to determine the lawfulness of custody or detention of the defendant and
may not be used to determine collateral matters not affecting the custody process.”
Hardley v. State, 893 N.E.2d 740, 742 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citation omitted). A
defendant is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus if he or she is unlawfully incarcerated and
is entitled to immediate release. Id. (citation omitted). Proper claims under a petition for
a writ of habeas corpus include allegations that the petitioner’s sentence has expired, that
he has been denied good time or credit time, or that he is seeking a correction of the
beginning or end of his sentence. See Partlow v. Superintendent, 756 N.E.2d 978, 980
(Ind. 2001) (alteration in original). If a petitioner erroneously captions his action as a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus rather than post-conviction relief, courts will
frequently and properly treat the petition as one for post-conviction relief, based on the
content of the petition, rather than the caption. Hardley, 893 N.E.2d at 743.
Here, Temple appears to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
revocation of his parole, and he appears to allege due process violations related to that
proceeding. The remedy for an unlawful revocation of parole is filing a petition for post-
conviction relief. See Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1.1(a); Hardley, 893 N.E.2d at 743.
Under Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(c), “if a petitioner applies for a writ of habeas
3
corpus, in the court having jurisdiction of his person, attacking the validity of his
conviction or sentence, that court shall under this Rule transfer the cause to the court
where the petitioner was convicted or sentenced, and the latter court shall treat it as a
petition for relief under this Rule.” Consequently, rather than simply dismissing
Temple’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, the trial court in Henry County should have
transferred the cause to the court where he was convicted and sentenced, namely, the
Marion Superior Court. See Martin v. State, 901 N.E.2d 645, 647 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009);
Appellant’s App. at 34. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court’s dismissal
of Temple’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and remand with instructions to transfer
the cause to the court where he was convicted and sentenced.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
BAILEY, J., and BARNES, J., concur.
4