Kuchel v. Warden
Filing
22
OPINION AND ORDER: The Petition for Habeas Corpus is DENIED. The Court DENIES Charles Kuchel a certificate of appealability pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 11. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of the Respondent and against the Petitioner. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 11/26/18. (ksp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
CHARLES KUCHEL,
Petitioner,
v.
CAUSE NO.: 3:17-CV-871-PPS-MGG
WARDEN,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
Charles Kuchel, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the calculation of his sentences for criminal deviate
conduct, criminal recklessness, criminal confinement, and battery under Cause No. SCR
83-47 and for criminal confinement and criminal deviate conduct under Cause No. SCR
83-43. In the petition, Kuchel argued that he should have been released on October 20,
2009, citing a “Change of Commitment” form prepared by the Indiana Department of
Correction. However, he did not explain the significance of this document, nor did he
explain how the October 2009 date was calculated. The Warden responded that
Kuchel’s projected release date is December 12, 2019. Though the Warden explained
how projected release dates were calculated, this explanation suggested that the
projected release date for Kuchel should have been December 12, 2018. Because neither
party adequately explained the projected release dates they proposed, I granted them
another opportunity to do so.
In Kuchel’s supplemental response, he explains that a “Change of Commitment”
form is a form used by the Department of Corrections to amend sentences but offers no
calculation to explain why he believes the October 2009 release date is correct. Instead,
he references a letter from his former attorney, dated February 16, 2018. ECF 19-1 at 1.
In this letter, the former attorney states:
I recall that I did not quit working on your case or withdraw my
appearance until I was satisfied that your sentence and the Department of
Correction’s earliest possible release date were correct. There is nothing
that I see in the paperwork that you sent me which makes me doubt
whether your sentence or outdate are correct.
Id. Notably, this letter does not explain the proposed October 2009 release date, nor
does it suggest that the December 2019 release date is incorrect.
In the Warden’s supplemental response, he provides a detailed explanation of
how Kuchel’s expected release date was calculated. ECF 21. He explains that inmates
may be disciplined by loss of good time credit or by a classification demotion, which
affects the rate at which good time credit is accrued. See Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3. He
explains that the effect of Kuchel’s disciplinary record on his good time credit was
omitted from the Warden’s initial response and that this omission caused the one-year
discrepancy between that explanation and the projected release date of December 12,
2019. After careful review of the sentence calculation records, I find that the Warden
fully explains the projected release date of December 12, 2019, and that his calculations
are sound. Based on this record, I cannot conclude that Kuchel’s projected release date
of December 12, 2019, is incorrect. Therefore, Kuchel’s petition for habeas relief is
denied.
2
Pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 11, I must consider whether to grant or deny a
certificate of appealability. To obtain a certificate of appealability when the court
dismisses a petition on procedural grounds, the petitioner must show that reasonable
jurists would find it debatable (1) whether the court was correct in its procedural ruling
and (2) whether the petition states a valid claim for denial of a constitutional right. Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, there is no basis for finding that jurists of
reason would debate the correctness of this ruling. Therefore, there is no basis for
encouraging him to proceed further.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) DENIES the habeas corpus petition;
(2) DENIES Charles Kuchel a certificate of appealability pursuant to Habeas
Corpus Rule 11; and
(3) DIRECTS the clerk to enter judgment in favor of the Respondent and against
the Petitioner.
ENTERED: November 26, 2018.
/s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?