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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT