Kevin Martin v. Lauren A. Kawecki, Jeffrey L. Sanford, and Terri J. Rethlake (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 14, 2019
• Docket: 18A-CT-1454
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Aug 14 2019, 9:14 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 APPELLEES: Kevin Martin LAUREN A. KAWECKI AND Carlisle, Indiana JEFFERY L. SANFORD Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Katherine A. Cornelius Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kevin Martin, August 14, 2019 Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CT-1454 v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Circuit Court Lauren A. Kawecki, Jeffrey L. The Honorable John Broden, Sanford, and Terri J. Rethlake, Judge Appellee-Defendants. Trial Court Cause No. 71C01-1711-CT-508

Tavitas, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-1454 | August 14, 2019 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary

[1] Kevin Martin appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing Martin’s complaint

against deputy prosecutor Lauren Kawecki and Judge Jeffery Sanford (“Judge

Sanford”) (collectively, “Defendants”). 1 We affirm.

Issue

[2] Martin raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court erred in

dismissing Martin’s complaint.

Facts

[3] On February 16, 2007, a jury convicted Martin of murder, and Martin was

sentenced to sixty-five years executed. After Martin’s trial, he initiated several

filings, including a petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR”). Kawecki

represented the State at the PCR proceedings, and Judge Sanford presided over

the PCR proceedings.

[4] On October 16, 2017, Martin, pro se, filed a complaint alleging that Defendants

violated Martin’s Sixth Amendment rights for “negligence” in failing to allow

Martin to present a defense and call witnesses on his own behalf. Appellee’s

App. Vol. II p. 4. Martin initially filed his complaint in the Sullivan Circuit

Court; however, the case was later venued in St. Joseph County.

1 Martin’s complaint also appears to include Terri J. Rethlake as a defendant. Martin’s brief does not appear to appeal the claims as to Rethlake specifically, and the notice of appeal does not include Rethlake’s name. Accordingly, we focus only on Kawecki and Judge Sanford in this appeal.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-1454 | August 14, 2019 Page 2 of 4 [5] On December 20, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Indiana

Trial Rule 12(B)(6) arguing that Martin’s suit fails for three reasons: (1)

Kawecki is shielded by prosecutorial immunity; (2) Judge Sanford is shielded

by judicial immunity; and (3) Martin is not entitled to relief because his

conviction for murder still stands. The trial court granted Defendants’ motion

to dismiss. Martin now appeals.

Analysis

[6] Martin argues that it was error for the trial court to dismiss his complaint

against Defendants under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6). Martin’s arguments in

his brief are difficult to understand or ascertain. Martin made several

arguments in his initial complaint; however, he does not appear to assert all the

same arguments on appeal. Finally, Martin’s request for relief includes a

request that he receive a new post-conviction relief hearing and that we order

the trial court to allow him to introduce the evidence he sought to initially

admit at his murder trial. We address only the arguments that we can readily

ascertain from Martin’s brief. To the extent that Martin has argued more issues

than we address in our opinion, those arguments are waived for failure to make

a cogent argument. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46 (“The argument must contain

the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent

reasoning.”).

[7] “Since a 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim challenges only

the legal sufficiency of the complaint, it presents a legal question that we review

de novo.” Ward v. Carter, 90 N.E.3d 660, 662 (Ind. 2018) (citing Thornton v. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-1454 | August 14, 2019 Page 3 of 4 State, 43 N.E.3d 585, 587 (Ind. 2015)). “We may affirm a dismissal under

12(B)(6) ‘if it is sustainable on any basis in the record.’” Ward, 90 N.E.3d at

662 (quoting Thornton, 43 N.E.3d at 587).

[8] Here, the trial court properly dismissed Martin’s complaint. All the claims

Martin alleges against Defendants stem from conduct that Defendants

completed in the course of their roles as deputy prosecutor and judge.

Accordingly, both Defendants are immune from civil suits based on these

actions. See Freeman v. Thompson, 124 N.E.3d 74, 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (“We

have long recognized that judicial immunity is granted even when judges act

maliciously or corruptly.”) (quotations omitted); see also Sims v. Beamer, 757

N.E.2d 1021, 1024 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (“Generally, judges are entitled to

absolute immunity from suits or money damages for all actions taken in the

judge’s judicial capacity; only where a judge’s actions are taken in the complete

absence of any jurisdiction will judicial immunity not apply.”); see also Foster v.

Pearcy, 387 N.E.2d 446, 538 (Ind. 1979) (“[W]here, as here, the acts are

reasonably within the general scope of authority granted to prosecuting

attorneys, no liability will attach.”). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in

dismissing Martin’s complaint against Defendants.

Conclusion

[9] The trial court did not err in dismissing Martin’s complaint. We affirm.

[10] Affirmed.

Crone, J., and Bradford, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-1454 | August 14, 2019 Page 4 of 4