Jimmy Lee Nave Jr., Appellant-Petitioner v. Donald Emerson, Appellee-Respondent (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] While incarcerated, Jimmy Nave filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. The trial court treated Nave's petition as one for post-conviction relief, and because Nave had previously sought post-conviction relief and had not requested leave from this Court to file a successive petition, the trial court dismissed the petition. At issue is whether Nave was entitled to immediate release. But because Nave's claim is moot and falls outside the public interest exception, we dismiss.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In July 2013, Nave was convicted of kidnapping. He was sentenced to thirty-eight years in custody of the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) with thirty-five years executed, three years suspended, and 135 days of credit time. In December 2014, Nave filed his first petition for post-conviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied his petition. Nave then sought leave from this Court twice to file a successive petition for post-conviction relief; both requests were denied.

[3] At the time of Nave's initial sentence, his earliest possible release date (“EPRD”) was February 15, 2030. In January 2022, Nave began a case plan credit time (“CPCT”) agreement with the DOC allowing him to receive credit time following periodic reviews and individualized assessments. See Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 8. In May 2022, Nave's sentence was modified and his EPRD was updated to August 17, 2027. And with educational credit time, the DOC provided a new release date of August 5, 2025.

[4] On December 20, 2024, Nave filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he claimed he was “unlawfully restrained of his liberty and falsely imprisoned ․ at [the] Plainfield Correctional Facility[.]” Id. at 7. He maintained he was “entitled to immediate release because he [had] fully served his sentence.” Id. Nave argued he was being held past the expiration of his sentence because the DOC miscalculated the educational credit time he should have received after the modification of his sentence. According to his own calculations, Nave believed his release date was December 2, 2024, instead of August 2025. Donald Emerson—the Warden of the Plainfield Correctional Facility—moved to dismiss Nave's habeas petition under Trial Rule 12(B)(6). Emerson urged Nave's petition “should be dismissed because it [was] properly considered ․ a petition for post-conviction relief ․ and because Mr. Nave does not have leave ․ his [p]etition [was] an unauthorized successive petition for post-conviction relief.” Id. at 16.

[5] The trial court granted Emerson's motion and dismissed Nave's petition. The trial court found Nave's habeas petition was “properly considered” a petition for post-conviction relief. Id. at 5. Moreover, because Nave failed to seek leave from this Court for a successive post-conviction petition, the petition had to be dismissed under Post-Conviction Rule 1(12).

Because this Court cannot grant effective relief, the case is dismissed as moot.

[6] “The long-standing rule in Indiana courts has been that a case is deemed moot when no effective relief can be rendered to the parties before the court.” Matter of Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 32, 37 (Ind. 1991). “When the concrete controversy at issue in a case has been ended or settled, or in some manner disposed of, so as to render it unnecessary to decide the question involved, the case will usually be dismissed.” Mosley v. State, 908 N.E.2d 599, 603 (Ind. 2009)).

[7] Although “Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to actual cases and controversies, the Indiana Constitution does not contain any similar restraint.” Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d at 37. Indiana courts have “long recognized that a case may be decided on its merits under an exception to the general rule when the case involves questions of ‘great public interest.’ ” Breedlove v. State, 20 N.E.3d 172, 174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citation omitted), trans. denied. The exception “may be invoked when the issue involves a question of great public importance which is likely to recur.” T.W. v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., 121 N.E.3d 1039, 1042 (Ind. 2019).

[8] In this case, Nave entered into a CPCT agreement with the DOC which permitted receipt of credit time after periodic reviews and individualized assessments. See generally Bradford v. State, 211 N.E.3d 36, 39–40 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (discussing development of CPCT agreements and noting “offenders have no constitutional right to receive credit time”), trans. denied. He subsequently received a sentence modification. After applying credit time, the DOC discharged Nave on August 5, 2025, his EPRD following the modification of his sentence.¹ Nave's discharge means there is no effective relief for this Court to grant, see Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d at 37, as the controversy at issue (whether he was entitled to immediate release) has ended, see Mosley, 908 N.E.2d at 603. And because we do not believe Nave's case warrants invocation of the public interest exception, the case is dismissed as moot. See Breedlove, 20 N.E.3d at 174 (declining to invoke the public interest exception where the “appeal [was] merely review of alleged error”).

Conclusion

[9] Nave's discharge from prison after he filed his appeal rendered his claim moot, and we dismiss this case.

[10] Dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   See Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 5 (stating a release date of August 5, 2025); see also Indiana Department of Correction, Incarcerated Search, https://offenderlocator.idoc.in.gov/idoc-ofs-1.0.2/ofs (last visited Nov. 7, 2025) [https://perma.cc/5ZBY-BLCA].

Kenworthy, Judge.

Foley, J., and Scheele, J., concur.