ILNews

Court orders mandate for full parole hearing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a prisoner's pro se action for a mandate requiring all five parole board members to vote on his parole eligibility, ruling the prisoner's case was supported by Indiana statute.

In Kevin S. Varner v. Indiana Parole Board, No. 45A04-0812-CR-693, the Court of Appeals first had to determine whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over Kevin Varner's mandate action, and then it had to decide whether the mandate action stated a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Only four out of five parole board members voted on whether Varner should be granted parole and the vote resulted in a tie. Because three or more members didn't vote to grant him parole, his parole was denied. Wanting the fifth board member to cast his vote, Varner filed a mandate action in Lake Superior Court alleging the board had a duty under Indiana Code Section 11-13-3-3(b) to determine his eligibility based on a five-person vote. The trial court dismissed the action claiming it had no jurisdiction over the parole board.

The Court of Appeals reviewed the dismissal of the action under the standards of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and pursuant to prescreening statutes because it was unclear why the trial court dismissed the action. In its subject matter jurisdiction review, the appellate court ruled Varner's mandate action fell within the general scope of authority conferred upon the trial court by the constitution or statute, wrote Judge Margret Robb. Because I.C. Section 4-21.5-2-5(6) precludes judicial review of an agency action related to an offender within the jurisdiction of the Department of Correction, a mandate action would provide Varner an adequate remedy at law. Varner doesn't challenge the board's decision to grant or deny his parole; he challenges that the decision is to be made by the full, five-member board.

Under the prescreening statutes, the appellate court ruled based on previous caselaw that his mandate action states a claim upon which relief can be granted. His action is based on a clear, statutory requirement and his relief can be granted by having the full, five-member board vote on his eligibility for parole.

Instead of remanding the case for the trial court to determine whether Indiana Code requires a five-member vote, the appellate court addressed the issue on the merits to promote judicial economy.

The term in the statute "final decision" isn't statutorily defined, but the appellate court agreed with Varner that it means the decision to grant or deny parole, wrote the judge. The term "full parole board" also isn't statutorily defined, but other sections of Indiana code establish that the parole board consists of five members appointed by the governor. The Court of Appeals ruled Varner clearly and unquestionably demonstrated that he is entitled to a mandate, wrote Judge Robb.

The appellate court remanded the case to the trial court to enter judgment in Varner's favor and issue the mandate requiring that all five board members cast their vote on his parole eligibility.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

  2. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  3. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  4. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  5. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

ADVERTISEMENT