MoreLaw Receptionists
VOIP Phone and Virtual Receptionist Services

Call 918-582-6422 Today

On May 8, 2008, Gates pleaded guilty to charges of rape and escape in

Vanderburgh County and was sentenced to an aggregate term of fourteen years

in the Department of Correction. While incarcerated, on June 16, 2010, Gates

also pleaded guilty to prisoner possessing a device or material, a Class C felony,

and was sentenced to a three-year term to run consecutively to his previouslyimposed fourteen-year term.

[3] On June 10, 2017, Gates was released to parole. Later, on August 10, 2017, the

State alleged that Gates had violated the conditions of his parole by possessing

obscene materials. Gates admitted to violating the conditions of his parole on

August 11, 2017, and subsequently waived his right to a preliminary parole

revocation hearing. Relying on various documents and Gates’s admission, on

September 26, 2017, the Parole Board revoked Gates’s parole.

1 Though Gates initially filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the trial court properly construed this

action as a petition for post-conviction relief because Gates is challenging the revocation of his parole and is

not seeking immediate release from an unlawful incarceration. See Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(a)(5); see

also Grayson v. State, 58 N.E.3d 998, 1001 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-1288 | April 28, 2020 Page 3 of 5

[4] On February 12, 2019, Gates filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which he

later amended on March 4, 2019. In response, the State filed a motion for

summary disposition on March 26, 2019, arguing that the matter should not be

treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and that Gates should be denied

relief because he admitted to violating the conditions of his parole. The trial

court took the matter under advisement. On May 21, 2019, the trial court issued

an order stating that it had treated Gates’s petition as one for post-conviction

relief and, consequently, granted the State’s motion for summary disposition,

thereby affirming the revocation of his parole. Gates now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Gates’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred by granting the

State’s motion for summary disposition and affirming that his parole should be

revoked. Specifically, Gates contends that there should have been an

evidentiary hearing on his petition because there were genuine issues of

material fact.

[6] Pursuant to Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g):

The court may grant a motion by either party for summary

disposition of the petition when it appears from the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, stipulations of

fact, and any affidavits submitted, that there is no genuine issue of

material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law. . . . If an issue of material fact is raised, then the

court shall hold an evidentiary hearing as soon as reasonably

possible.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-1288 | April 28, 2020 Page 4 of 5

Under this subsection, “[a]n appellate court reviews the grant of a motion for

summary disposition in post-conviction proceedings on appeal in the same way

as a motion for summary judgment.” Norris v. State, 896 N.E.2d 1149, 1151

(Ind. 2008). And it is well established that:

the standard of review of a grant or denial of a motion for

summary judgment is the same as that used in the trial court:

summary judgment is appropriate only where the designated

evidence shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and

the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The

moving party must designate sufficient evidence to eliminate any

genuine factual issues, and once the moving party has done so, the

burden shifts to the nonmoving party to come forth with contrary

evidence.

Mid-States Gen. & Mech. Contracting Corp. v. Town of Goodland, 811 N.E.2d 425,

430 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (internal citation omitted).

[7] Based on the record, we know that in rendering its decision to revoke Gates’s

parole, “the Parole Board relied on the Parole Release Agreement, Parole

Violation Report, Initial hearing[,] Preliminary Hearing Waiver, New

Convictions, Parole Case Notes, Offender Information System[,] the Plea, and

other evidence.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 8-9. Moreover, Gates admitted to

possessing obscene materials and violating the conditions of his parole. Gates

even signed a document affirming all of this to be true—further evidence that

Gates understood that his parole could be revoked. It is apparent to us that

Gates understood the nature of his actions and accepted the ultimate

consequence of his parole revocation.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-1288 | April 28, 2020 Page 5 of 5

[8] Thus, the State has designated sufficient evidence showing that there are no

genuine issues of material fact. Despite Gates’s contention that an evidentiary

hearing on his petition for post-conviction relief should have been held, he has

proffered no evidence to rebut the State’s evidence except to say that “[i]n the

particular case of appellant Gates the material fact allegation required an

evidentiary hearing for the submission of evidence for the purpose of hearing

testimony in [sic] that is ‘best evidence’ in any case.” Appellant’s Br. p. 8.

Accordingly, we find that Gates has not met his burden.

Therefore, the trial court did not err when it granted the State’s motion for

summary disposition, thereby denying Gates’s petition for post-conviction

relief.



The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.