Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 30 2014, 9:39 am
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:
CHARLES C. WOOD GREGORY F. ZOELLER
New Castle, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
KATHERINE MODESITT COOPER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
CHARLES C. WOOD, )
)
Appellant-Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A05-1310-CR-514
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Grant W. Hawkins, Judge
Cause No. 49G05-0303-FB-46495
September 30, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAKER, Judge
Charles Wood appeals the denial of his motion for earned reformative educational
credit time. Finding that this appeal is an unauthorized successive petition for post-
conviction relief, we dismiss.
On January 21, 2004, Wood pleaded guilty to arson and admitted to being an
habitual offender. On February 11, 2004, the trial court imposed a thirty-year sentence
for arson, which it enhanced by ten years for the habitual offender finding, resulting in an
aggregate executed sentence of forty years. Wood appealed, and this Court denied.
Wood v. State, 49A02-0403-CR-248 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2004). On October 4, 2005,
Wood filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court denied his
petition, and it appears that Wood did not appeal that denial. On September 13, 2013,
Wood filed a motion for earned reformative credit time, which the trial court denied on
September 16, 2013. Wood now appeals in the guise of a direct criminal appeal.
It is well established that “post-conviction proceedings are the appropriate
procedure for considering properly presented claims for educational credit time.” Young
v. State, 888 N.E.2d 1255, 1256 (Ind. 2008). To present a claim properly, a petitioner
must follow the Indiana Rules of Post-Conviction Remedies. Where, as here, the petition
is not the first that the petitioner has filed seeking post-conviction relief, that petitioner
must comply with Post-Conviction Rule 1(12). Among other things, the petitioner must
request authorization from an appellate court to file the successive petition. Ind. Post-
Conviction Rule 1(12)(a). Wood has not done so, nor has he complied with the other
requirements found in this Rule. P-C.R. 1(12)(a)-(c).
2
We echo our Supreme Court’s caution that if Wood hopes to prevail on his claim
after he has properly presented it via post-conviction procedures, “he must present
evidence supporting each portion of it with his proposed successive petition for post-
conviction relief filed along with his Successive Post-Conviction Relief Rule 1 Petition
Form pursuant to P-C.R. 1(12)[]. Here, for example, [Wood] must show in the first place
what the relevant DOC administrative grievance procedures are, and then that he has
exhausted them at all levels.” Young, 888 N.E.2d at 1257.
The appeal is dismissed.
BARNES, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
3