Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Damon Nelson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Citation: Not availableDocket: 49A02-1609-PC-2171
Court: Indiana Court of Appeals; April 7, 2017; Indiana; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Memorandum Decision, filed on April 7, 2017, addresses the appeal of Damon Nelson, who represented himself pro se, challenging the denial of his successive petition for postconviction relief related to a parole violation. Nelson was paroled on February 25, 2013, under a conditional agreement prohibiting illegal conduct. After being arrested on new charges in April 2013, which were later dismissed, he was released, but faced a new parole violation warrant on January 24, 2014, due to subsequent criminal charges. Although he did not receive a preliminary parole violation hearing, he pled guilty to possession of controlled substances in November 2015. Following a parole violation hearing via videoconference on January 12, 2016, his parole was revoked based on the conviction. Nelson filed a pro se amended petition for successive postconviction relief on March 16, 2016, contesting the parole revocation. The trial court denied his petition on August 17, 2016, leading to this appeal. The court noted that pro se litigants must adhere to the same legal standards as represented parties and that the burden of proof lies with the petitioner to demonstrate grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, stating that it would not reverse unless the evidence overwhelmingly contradicted the lower court's findings. Nelson has failed to meet his appellate burden due to the lack of a well-developed argument supported by relevant legal authority. He claims his parole release agreement is invalid without a signature from a parole board member and alleges violations of his constitutional rights, including the absence of a preliminary parole violation hearing. However, his assertions merely summarize facts and procedural history without adequate legal citations or references to the record to substantiate his claims. According to Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a), issues that lack a cogent argument or proper citation are waived on appeal. Consequently, the court will not consider his unsupported assertions, leading to the affirmation of the postconviction court's judgment. Justices Baker and Barnes concurred with this decision.