Paul Steven Mills v. State of Indiana

MoreLaw Suites

601 South Boulder, Suite 600 918-582-3993

[1] Paul Steven Mills engaged in disruptive behavior while in jail awaiting trial.

The sheriff filed a motion for Mills to be transferred to a facility of the Indiana

Department of Correction (DOC) pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-33-11-1,

alleging that he represented a substantial threat to the safety of others. The trial

court granted the motion. Mills now appeals, asserting that the trial court

erred. We disagree and therefore affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mills was confined in the Vermillion County Jail on multiple charges. On

January 31, 2020, Sheriff Michael Phelps and Jail Commander Derrek

Williams wrote a letter/motion to the trial court that reads,

I am submitting this letter as a request that [Mills] be ordered to

the [DOC] for safe keeping. Mr. Mills has been incarcerated in

the Vermillion County Jail since 06/05/2019 and in that time he

has been disruptive to the safety and security of the Vermillion

County Jail. On several occasions Paul has threatened to inflict

harm to himself with stating on several occasions that he wanted

to kill himself. The staff are under constant threat from Mills as

he is verbally abusive towards them trying to instigate a

confrontation often stating “I am going to get all of you”. Mr.

Mills poses a threat with bodily waste as he has urinated and

defecated in his cell, on the floor and out of the meal tray door.

Most recently Paul Mills has attacked another inmate and is back

in a holding cell due to not being able to safely house him in

general population. Mills takes constant supervision and poses a

significant burden on the staff of the Vermillion County Jail to

the point that he is a safety and security risk to the facility.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-874 | August 21, 2020 Page 3 of 7

Therefore pursuant to [Indiana Code Section] 35-33-11-1 it is my

opinion that Paul Mills does represent a substantial threat to the

safety of himself and others.

Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 160.

[3] Indiana Code Section 35-33-11-1 provides as follows:

Upon motion by the:

(1) sheriff;

(2) prosecuting attorney;

(3) defendant or his counsel;

(4) attorney general; or

(5) court;

alleging that an inmate in a county jail awaiting trial is in danger

of serious bodily injury or death or represents a substantial threat

to the safety of others, the court shall determine whether the

inmate is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, or

represents a substantial threat to the safety of others. If the court

finds that the inmate is in danger of serious bodily injury or death

or represents a substantial threat to the safety of others, it shall

order the sheriff to transfer the inmate to another county jail or to

a facility of the department of correction designated by the

commissioner of the department as suitable for the confinement

of that prisoner and provided that space is available. For the

purpose of this chapter, an inmate is not considered in danger of

serious bodily injury or death due to an illness or other medical

condition.

[4] On February 4, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on the motion, at which

Phelps, Williams, and Mills testified. Phelps testified that Mills “keeps an

entire [cell] block riled up on a regular basis” and battered another inmate “just

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-874 | August 21, 2020 Page 4 of 7

last week.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 5, 7. Mills was charged with level 6 felony battery for

that incident.1

According to Phelps, Mills threw his urine and feces into his cell

and out “the meal tray doorway, which is where the meal trays are literally put

into the block[,]” and also “threatened to [throw] his feces and urine on staff.”

Id. at 5-6. Moreover, Mills “ran his head into the wall several times” and had

been in and out of a padded isolation cell due to his behavior. Id. at 7. Phelps

stated,

[Mills] says he’s going to keep doing it. And at the same time

you can’t put him back in a regular block because he may hurt

somebody else again. And this is constant to the point to where

you almost have to be with him all the time. We just don’t have

the staff to do that.

Id. Phelps acknowledged that he witnessed Mills “being paranoid” and that

Mills “has possibly some delusions[.]” Id. at 8. Williams offered similar

testimony and stated, “[W]e have to have constant interaction with [Mills]. It

takes our focus off the rest of the jail.” Id. at 16. The trial court took the matter

under advisement.

[5] The chronological case summary (CCS) indicates that two days later, Mills was

“released to DOC for safekeeping.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 7. The CCS

does not indicate that a written order was issued. On April 6, 2020, Mills filed

a motion requesting that the trial court issue a nunc pro tunc entry “to clarify

1 The trial court held an initial hearing on that charge after taking evidence on the motion to transfer.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-874 | August 21, 2020 Page 5 of 7

the extent of the action taken regarding safekeeping[,]” id. at 93, as well as a

belated motion to certify the order for interlocutory appeal. The motion to

certify notes that Mills had been transferred to Wabash Valley Correctional

Facility pending a competency evaluation that had been requested by his

counsel. The trial court granted the motion for and issued a nunc pro tunc

entry, which simply states that the court had “granted the request to transport

Mills to the DOC for safekeeping.” Appealed Order at 2. The court also

certified the order for interlocutory appeal. On May 8, 2020, this Court

accepted jurisdiction.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Mills contends that the trial court erred in granting the motion to transfer him

to the DOC, claiming that “[t]he State’s interpretation of what constitutes a

‘substantial threat to the safety of others’ is overly broad.” Appellant’s Br. at 12

(emphasis omitted). Mills presents his claim as an issue of statutory

interpretation, to be reviewed de novo. We believe that the ruling should be

reviewed under the clearly-erroneous standard. See Ind. Trial Rule 52(A) (“On

appeal of claims tried by the court without a jury … the court on appeal shall

not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous, and due regard

shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the

witnesses.”). “A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the materials

on appeal leaves us firmly convinced that a mistake has been made.” Hutchison

v. Trilogy Health Servs., LLC, 2 N.E.3d 802, 805 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). A general

judgment unaccompanied by any findings or conclusions will be affirmed on

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-874 | August 21, 2020 Page 6 of 7

any legal theory consistent with the evidence. Id. “We neither reweigh the

evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses.” Ponziano Constr. Servs., Inc.

v. Quadri Enters., LLC, 980 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

[7] A review of the hearing transcript does not leave us firmly convinced that a

mistake has been made in this case. Mills battered a fellow inmate severely

enough to warrant a level 6 felony battery charge,

2 regularly agitated the other

inmates in his cell block, threw his excrement outside his cell and threatened to

throw it on jail staff, and strained the jail’s limited resources, which, as the State

correctly observes, “could only serve to decrease the safety and security of

inmates and staff.” Appellee’s Br. at 14. The foregoing would amply support a

finding that Mills represented “a substantial threat to the safety of others” for

purposes of Indiana Code Section 35-33-11-1. Mills’s assertions to the contrary

are merely invitations to reweigh the evidence, which we may not and will not

do. Therefore, we affirm.3

2 A simple battery, i.e., a knowing or intentional touching of another person in a rude, insolent, or angry

manner, is a class B misdemeanor; a level 6 felony battery involves “moderate bodily injury,” which means

“any impairment of physical condition that includes substantial pain.” Ind. Code §§ 35-42-2-1, 35-31.5-2-

204.5. The charging information for Mills’s battery alleges that he kicked another inmate in the head,

causing him to fall down and resulting in a concussion. Tr. Vol. 2 at 36.

3 Mills argues that we should require jail authorities to pursue civil commitment proceedings against an

inmate before they may seek to have the inmate transferred pursuant to Section 35-33-11-1. This is a public

policy matter for the legislature to consider.

Affirmed