James Ingersoll v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: JAMES INGERSOLL New Castle, Indiana GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana ZACHARY J. STOCK Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana FILED Jul 23 2010, 9:20 am IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA JAMES INGERSOLL, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 75A03-0911-CR-540 APPEAL FROM THE STARKE CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Jeanene Calabrese, Special Judge Cause No. 75C01-0306-FA-6 July 23, 2010 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BAILEY, Judge CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court Case Summary James Ingersoll appeals the post-conviction court s denial of his request for education credit time. We affirm. Issue Ingersoll raises the issue of whether the post-conviction court erred in denying his amended petition for education credit time. Facts and Procedural History While incarcerated for having committed a felony, Ingersoll earned a high school diploma from an entity in Florida. After pursuing certain administrative remedies, he received the following information on September 17, 2009, from the Indiana Department of Correction ( DOC ): This letter is in response to a recent reviewed classification appeal form. The subject of your complaint is not a classification issue, but may be a grievable matter. You are referred to the Grievance Procedure for Adult Offenders for the proper processing of your complaint. Appendix at 18. Eight days later, on September 25, 2009, he petitioned the Starke Circuit Court for education credit time. The petition was promptly denied. On November 17, 2009, Ingersoll filed an additional grievance with the DOC. Ingersoll now appeals the post-conviction court s denial of his amended petition for education credit time. 2 Discussion and Decision Ingersoll argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying his amended petition for education credit time. A petition for post-conviction relief must show in the first place what the relevant DOC administrative grievance procedures are, and then that [the petitioner] has exhausted them at all levels. Young v. State, 888 N.E.2d 1255, 1257 (Ind. 2008). Here, Ingersoll has submitted documents that support the exact opposite proposition; namely, that he had not exhausted the appropriate DOC grievance procedure when he filed his petition with the Starke Circuit Court. Accordingly, he has not complied with the Indiana Supreme Court s decision in Young v. State. The post-conviction court did not err in denying Ingersoll s amended petition for education credit time. Affirmed. MAY, J., and BARNES, J., concur. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.