Gerald L. Doll v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jul 13 2016, 8:37 am

regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Gerald L. Doll Gregory F. Zoeller Michigan City, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana James B. Martin Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Gerald L. Doll, July 13, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 91A02-1602-CR-259 v. Appeal from the White Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Robert J. Mrzlack, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 91D01-1202-FB-25

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 91A02-1602-CR-259 | July 13, 2016 Page 1 of 4 [1] Gerald Doll appeals the denial of his motion for a writ of habeus corpus motion

by the trial court. Finding no error, we affirm.

[2] On February 28, 2012, the State charged Doll with robbery resulting in bodily

injury, a class B felony; robbery, a class C felony; resisting law enforcement, a

class D felony; and residential entry, a class D felony. The following day, the

State added a charge of criminal confinement, a class C felony.

[3] On September 4, 2012, Doll pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to

robbery resulting in bodily injury, robbery, and resisting law enforcement. The

other two charges were dismissed. On October 2, 2012, the trial court

sentenced Doll to thirty years, pursuant to his plea agreement.

[4] Doll filed a post-conviction relief petition in the post-conviction court, but

withdrew it on December 1, 2014.1 Beginning in June 2015, he began filing

numerous pro se pleadings in the trial court. The trial court denied these

pleadings on October 26, 2015, because the case before the trial court had

closed with Doll’s guilty plea and sentencing.

[5] On November 30, 2015, Doll filed a motion for a writ of habeas corpus. The

trial court denied the motion on the grounds that Doll “has not alleged any

infirmity with the judgment of conviction and has not raised any questions of

1 There is no indication in the Chronological Case Summary that Doll ever filed a direct appeal.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 91A02-1602-CR-259 | July 13, 2016 Page 2 of 4 the legality of his confinement . . . .” Appellant’s Br. p. 25. Doll now appeals

pro se.

[6] Although litigants are entitled to represent themselves in the legal system, pro se

litigants without legal training are held to the same standard as trained counsel

and are required to follow procedural rules. Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344

(Ind. Ct. App. 2004). One of our appellate rules is that every argument be

“supported by cogent reasoning.” Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a).

[7] Doll’s argument is the following. He argues that he is the agent for an “ens

legis,” a legal fiction, with the same name as himself. He then says that he “is a

secured party and has given notice to a superior lien interest . . . .” Appellant’s

Br. p. 3. He points to a UCC financing statement in which he purported to

create a security interest in himself. He then likens his plea agreement to a

contract that is unenforceable as a violation of public policy. He also says the

plea agreement is a contract of adhesion, any ambiguities in which should be

held against the State. He then argues that only persons indebted to the State

are subject to its statutes. Finally, he argues that the people involved in his

conviction are engaged in a “conspiracy rising to the level of RICO.” Id. at 21.

[8] Doll is wrong. Indiana Code section 35-41-1-1(b)(1) provides that a person may

be convicted under Indiana law if “either the conduct that is an element of the

offense, the result that is an element, or both, occur in Indiana.” Doll was

charged with five crimes, all of which occurred within Indiana. He pleaded

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 91A02-1602-CR-259 | July 13, 2016 Page 3 of 4 guilty to three of those crimes. Just as at the trial court level, he has not made

any allegation that challenges the legality of this outcome.

[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

May, J., and Brown, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 91A02-1602-CR-259 | July 13, 2016 Page 4 of 4