Gregory A. Caudle v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 31, 2015
• Docket: 49A02-1412-CR-847
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Mar 31 2015, 9:43 am Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 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 Gregory A. Caudle Gregory F. Zoeller Wabash Valley Correctional Facility Attorney General of Indiana Carlisle, Indiana J.T. Whitehead Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Gregory A. Caudle, March 31, 2015

Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1412-CR-847 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Sheila A. Carlisle, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge

The Honorable Stanley E. Kroh, Master Commissioner

Case No. 49G03-1305-PC-30738

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1412-CR-847 | March 31, 2015 Page 1 of 4 [1] Gregory A. Caudle, pro se, appeals the trial court’s denial of his “Verified

Motion for Discharge and Request for Production of Certified Documents.”

Concluding that the trial court’s denial of the motion is not a final appealable

order, or in the alternative that Caudle’s motion constituted a successive

petition for postconviction relief filed without permission of this Court, we

dismiss the appeal.

[2] We sua sponte address the issue of our jurisdiction in this case. The lack of

appellate jurisdiction may be raised at any time and, even if the parties do not

question subject matter jurisdiction, we may consider the issue sua sponte.

Haste v. State, 967 N.E.2d 576, 576 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). It is well settled that

this Court has jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments and appeals from

interlocutory orders. Ind. Appellate Rule 5. The record indicates that Caudle

filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief on August 27, 2014.1 The current

motion for discharge and request for production of documents was

subsequently filed on November 6, 2014. Although not labeled as such,

because Caudle has already petitioned for postconviction relief, his current

motion may be construed as a motion to amend or to supplement his petition

for postconviction relief, and therefore the trial court’s denial was not a final

appealable judgment, as it meets none of the criteria for final judgments

1 Caudle was convicted, following a jury trial, of two counts of class B felony burglary and one count of class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. The jury also found Caudle to be a habitual offender. While he originally filed a direct appeal, he later petitioned to withdraw that appeal. We granted his petition and dismissed his appeal with prejudice on February 14, 2014.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1412-CR-847 | March 31, 2015 Page 2 of 4 provided by Indiana Appellate Rule 2(H). Additionally, the trial court’s denial

meets none of the criteria for interlocutory appeals of right or discretionary

interlocutory appeals. See Ind. Appellate Rule 14(A), -(B). Therefore, the trial

court’s ruling is not now appealable.

[3] We note that even if Caudle’s motion is not considered a motion to amend his

petition for postconviction relief, his motion alternatively may be construed as a

habeas corpus petition because he alleged that he is being illegally imprisoned

and is entitled to immediate release. See Ind. Code § 34-25.5-1-1 (“Every

person whose liberty is restrained, under any pretense whatever, may prosecute

a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of the restraint, and shall be

delivered from the restraint if the restraint is illegal.”); see Hardley v. State, 893

N.E.2d 740, 742 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (a defendant is entitled to a writ of habeas

corpus if he is unlawfully incarcerated and entitled to immediate release).

Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(c) provides that a habeas corpus petition

challenging the validity of a conviction, as Caudle clearly does here, should be

treated as a petition for postconviction relief. As Caudle has already filed a

petition for postconviction relief, the current motion would be a successive

petition, and successive petitions for postconviction relief are not allowed

without permission from this Court. See Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(12).

Caudle has not sought such permission.

[4] For the foregoing reasons, we do not have jurisdiction over Caudle’s appeal of

the trial court’s ruling. This appeal is dismissed.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1412-CR-847 | March 31, 2015 Page 3 of 4 [5] Dismissed.

Brown, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1412-CR-847 | March 31, 2015 Page 4 of 4