Phillip D. Ealy v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 7, 2017
• Docket: 49A05-1610-CR-2304
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Apr 07 2017, 8:24 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Phillip D. Ealy Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Pendleton, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Monika Prekopa Talbot Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Phillip D. Ealy, April 7, 2017 Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A05-1610-CR-2304 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Grant Hawkins, Appellee-Respondent Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G05-9312-CF-168186

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

[1] In 1994, Phillip D. Ealy was convicted of murder and carrying a handgun

without a license and sentenced to sixty years. See Ealy v. State, 685 N.E.2d

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-CR-2304 | April 7, 2017 Page 1 of 2 1047 (Ind. 1997). In 2016, Ealy sought six months of credit for a substance-

abuse program that he had completed in prison in April 1996. See Appellant’s

App. p. 22. The Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) and later the trial

court denied Ealy’s request, and he now appeals. Indiana Code section 35-50-

6-3.3(b), which allows a person to earn educational credit for completing a

DOC-approved substance-abuse program while confined in the DOC, went into

effect in 1999. See P.L. 183-1999, § 3. However, educational credit cannot be

earned under subsection (b) unless the person completes at least a portion of the

program requirements after June 30, 1999. Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3.3(h).

Because Ealy completed the program in April 1996, he is not entitled to any

credit.1 We therefore affirm the trial court.

[2] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Robb, J., concur.

1 To the extent Ealy seeks educational credit for completing an anger-management program, he has not shown that the program is covered by the statute. And to the extent he seeks educational credit for completing the program “Thinking for a Change” in 2007, he has not exhausted his administrative remedies within the DOC. See Appellant’s App. pp. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 (documents showing that Ealy sought credit for only substance-abuse and anger-management programs); Ellis v. State, 58 N.E.3d 938, 941 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (explaining that a person must exhaust his administrative remedies within the DOC before appealing to a court because determinations regarding credit are the responsibility of the DOC), trans. denied.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-CR-2304 | April 7, 2017 Page 2 of 2