ILNews

Inmate’s action for credit time moot after DOC grants request

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Henry Circuit judge correctly dismissed an inmate’s action for educational credit time as moot after the Department of Correction determined he was entitled to the time and awarded him the credit, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Monday.

Alvino Pizano was incarcerated for committing child molesting and neglect of a dependent in 2007. He was released on parole in 2010 but returned to the DOC in 2012 because of a parole violation. In November 2012, he filed an action arguing that the state had erroneously denied him credit time after he earned a bachelor’s degree from Ball State University. The trial court summarily denied his request, but the Court of Appeals remanded for a hearing on the matter.

In preparation for the hearing in February 2014, the DOC found that Pizano had in fact completed the requirements of the bachelor’s degree program and awarded him credit time. The state then filed a motion to dismiss the action as moot since the DOC awarded the time. The trial court agreed and granted the state’s motion.

Pizano appealed in Alvino Pizano v. Indiana Attorney General Gregory Zoeller, et al., 33A04-1402-MI-85, claiming the dismissal was an error.

Pizano is no longer incarcerated and he has not identified any potential negative collateral consequences of the action being dismissed, the COA held. Pizano argued that he should have had 496 days subtracted from his maximum parole release date because of the state’s initial denial of his request for credit time, but he does not cite to any relevant authority to support his claim.

“Furthermore, because the State has awarded Pizano credit time for earning his degree and Pizano has since been released from incarceration, the trial court properly determined that the matter was moot as Pizano had been granted all possible relief. The trial court did not err in vacating the scheduled hearing and dismissing the action as moot,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote.

 

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 ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT