Ronald Rostochak v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 18, 2018
• Docket: 92A05-1710-CR-2316
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 18 2018, 6:40 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Ronald Rostochak Curtis T. Hill, Jr. New Castle, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana AMICI CURIAE PRO SE Jesse R. Drum Deputy Attorney General Timothy Galey Indianapolis, Indiana Ryan Willoughby Brian Woodring Jesse Cole Joel A. Richardson Gregory Owens Mason Brown Robert Mow Dallas Hartman James Kanable Steven E. Malloch Jesston L. Cora Ryan Myers Ronald Sweatt Jonathan Crosson New Castle, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 92A05-1710-CR-2316 | October 18, 2018 Page 1 of 5 Ronald Rostochak, October 18, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 92A05-1710-CR-2316 v. Appeal from the Whitley Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Appellee-Plaintiff. James R. Heuer, Senior Judge Trial Court Cause No. 92C01-0911-FA-132

Kirsch, Judge.

[1] Ronald Rostochak (“Rostochak”) appeals the trial court’s order denying his

petition for educational credit. Because Rostochak has already received the

educational credit that he requests, we dismiss his appeal as moot.

Facts and Procedural History [2] From September 2007 to December 2008, Rostochak molested M.E., beginning

when she was twelve years old. Rostochak v. State, No. 92A05-1112-CR-688, at

*1-2 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2012), trans. denied. In 2011, he was convicted of

Class A felony child molesting and sentenced to thirty years, with five years

suspended, for a total executed sentence of twenty-five years. Appellant’s App.

Vol. II at 35-37. From 1996 through 1997, prior to incarceration, Rostochak

had earned forty-two credit hours at University of Northwestern Ohio. Id. at

18. On August 9, 2014, while incarcerated, Rostochak completed his associate

degree at Grace College by earning eighteen more credit hours from January to

August 2014. Id. at 17-18. The Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”)

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 92A05-1710-CR-2316 | October 18, 2018 Page 2 of 5 awarded Rostochak 110 days of educational credit after the completion of his

associate degree. Id. at 17.

[3] On July 28, 2017, Rostochak filed an informal complaint, requesting that he be

awarded one year of educational credit for his associate degree. Id. at 15. On

August 3, 2017, a member of the DOC staff, after reviewing Rostochak’s

complaint, responded that this was “a legislative issue.” Id. On August 8,

2017, Rostochak filed an offender grievance, which again requested that he be

awarded one year of educational credit for completing his associate degree. Id.

at 14. On August 28, 2017, DOC staff responded that classification issues

cannot be resolved through the grievance process and that such issues are to be

appealed through their own appeal process. Id. at 13. On September 5, 2017,

Rostochak filed a classification appeal, which the DOC denied. Id. at 12.

[4] On September 11, 2017, Rostochak filed a petition for educational credit with

the trial court, which was denied the same day. Id. at 4-5, 22. After the trial

court denied Rostochak’s petition for educational credit, he filed this appeal.

On March 20, 2018, Rostochak filed a motion to certify his appeal as a class

action, and in the motion, he admitted “that the Appellant has now received the

full 365 days educational credit for completion of his associate[] degree he

requested in his appeal.” Motion to Certify Appeal as a Class Action at 2.

Discussion and Decision [5] Rostochak argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his

petition for educational credit. He asserts that because he completed an

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 92A05-1710-CR-2316 | October 18, 2018 Page 3 of 5 associate degree, he is entitled to the full 365-day educational credit. However,

the record shows that Rostochak has received the educational credit he

requests.

[6] “[W]here the principal questions at issue cease to be of real controversy

between the parties, the errors assigned become moot questions, and this court

will not retain jurisdiction to decide them.” Sainvil v. State, 51 N.E.3d 337, 342

(Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. Therefore, when we are not able to provide

effective relief upon an issue, “the issue is deemed moot, and we will not

reverse the trial court’s determination where absolutely no change in the status

quo will result.” Id. Here, Rostochak concedes that the DOC awarded him

“the full 365 days [of] educational credit for [the] completion of his associate[]

degree” he is requesting on appeal. Motion to Certify Appeal as a Class Action at 2.

Accordingly, there is no effective relief for this court to give Rostochak, and his

appeal is moot.

[7] Although we do not usually review moot issues, “Indiana courts have long

recognized that a case may be decided on its merits under an exception to the

general rule when the case involves questions of ‘great public interest.’”

Breedlove v. State, 20 N.E.3d 172, 174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing In re Lawrance,

579 N.E.2d 32, 37 (Ind. 1991)), trans. denied. “‘Cases in this category typically

raise important policy concerns and present issues that are likely to recur.’” Id.

(quoting Mosley v. State, 908 N.E.2d 599, 603 (Ind. 2009)). Rostochak’s issue on

appeal only affects a specific subset of prisoners -- those who committed their

crimes after July 1, 1993, when the educational credit statute was added, see

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 92A05-1710-CR-2316 | October 18, 2018 Page 4 of 5 Budd v. State, 935 N.E.2d 746, 752-53 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (stating that there

was no educational credit statute until Indiana Code section 35-50-6-3.3 was

added in 1993), completed some courses before their incarceration, and finished

their degrees after July 1, 2014, when subsection (e) was added to Indiana Code

section 35-50-6-3.3. Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3.3(e) (“Credit time earned under this

section must be directly proportional to the time served and course work

completed while incarcerated.”). This case does not present a question of great

public interest, and we will not deviate from the general rule of not deciding

moot cases. We, therefore, dismiss Rostochak’s appeal as moot.1

[8] Dismissed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.

1 Rostochak also raises an issue regarding his concern that the DOC will miscalculate his educational credit when he completes his bachelor’s degree. However, we do not reach such issue for any one of several reasons. First, Rostochak has not exhausted his administrative remedies regarding his claim. “‘When educational credit time is denied, a person must exhaust his administrative remedies within the DOC before appealing to a court because determinations altering credit time are the responsibility of the DOC.’” Ellis v. State, 58 N.E.3d 938, 941 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Stevens v. State, 895 N.E.2d 418, 419 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)), trans. denied. Second, Rostochak did not raise this issue to the trial court and it is, therefore, waived. Leatherman v. State, 101 N.E.3d 879, 885 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (“[A] party may not present an argument or issue on appeal unless the party raised that argument or issue before the trial court. In such circumstances the argument is waived.”). Third, Rostochak’s claim is not yet ripe for review because he has not yet finished his bachelor’s degree and received a calculation of educational credit from the DOC. “Ripeness ‘relates to the degree to which the defined issues in a case are based on actual facts, rather than on abstract possibilities, and are capable of being adjudicated on an adequately developed record.’” Dixon v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 56 N.E.3d 47, 52 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Ind. Dep’t of Envtl. Mgmt. v. Chem. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 643 N.E.2d 331, 336 (Ind. 1994)).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 92A05-1710-CR-2316 | October 18, 2018 Page 5 of 5