MCMILLAN v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] In 2021, after already having violated and been reinstated to parole in 2019, Raheem McMillan pled guilty to having violated two of his parole conditions and was ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence in the Department of Correction (“DOC”). McMillan filed a successive petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR”) in April of 2023, challenging, inter alia, the determinations that he had violated the terms of his parole at both of his parole revocation-hearings. On September 19, 2024, the post-conviction court granted the State's motion for summary disposition. McMillan contends that the post-conviction court erred in granting the State's motion for summary disposition. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] McMillan is currently serving a thirty-year sentence following his convictions for criminal deviate conduct and burglary, both Class A felonies, imposed in October of 2007. On around March 9, 2019, McMillan was mandatorily paroled. On August 25, 2019, McMillan “admitted to having contact with minors[,]” which was prohibited by Condition Four of McMillan's parole stipulations. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 87. A parole-revocation hearing was held on November 13, 2019. At the hearing, with counsel present, McMillan admitted to having violated Condition Four of his parole stipulations. The Indiana Parole Board (“the Board”) voted to reinstate McMillan on parole, and McMillan was reinstated to parole on or around January 16, 2020.

[3] On August 21, 2020, McMillan's parole agent discovered a photo of an unknown woman and a minor child in McMillan's phone. On the same date, McMillan's parole agent received a “Strap Tamper Alert” from McMillan's GPS monitoring service. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 135. McMillan was subsequently alleged to have violated Condition Four (Contact with Minors) and Condition Twenty-Seven (Electronic Monitoring) of his parole stipulations. At his parole revocation hearing on May 18, 2021, McMillan agreed that he had received notice of the hearing and pled guilty to the violations, and the parole board accepted his guilty plea. McMillan was ordered to serve the balance of his sentence.

[4] After receiving this Court's permission, McMillan filed a successive PCR petition on April 14, 2023. In the PCR petition, McMillan alleged that (1) he had been improperly found guilty of having violated his parole on November 13, 2019, (2) the Board had improperly revoked his parole on May 18, 2020[¹ ], (3) his parole conditions had been unconstitutionally vague and/or overbroad as applied to him, (4) the Board had violated his due-process rights on March 9, 2019, and January 16, 2020, (5) the Board and certain specific members of the Board had violated his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due-process rights, (6) the Board had failed to give him an individualized assessment before imposing certain sex-offender conditions, and (7) Indiana Code section 11-13-3-4(b) is unconstitutionally vague. On September 29, 2023, McMillan asked the post-conviction court to enjoin “the [Board], [DOC], Division [o]f Parole Services[, and i]ts employees, staff or agents from enforcing any condition imposed on [McMillan]’s parole, that this court deems unconstitutional, overbroad, and/or in violation of any state law or federal law.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 113. On October 5, 2023, the post-conviction court held a status hearing on McMillan's motion for preliminary injunction.

[5] On June 18, 2024, the State filed a Motion for Summary Disposition, arguing inter alia that because McMillan had pled guilty to each of the challenged parole violations, he was precluded from challenging those violations before the post-conviction court. McMillan responded to the State's motion for summary disposition, agreeing that he had pled guilty to the alleged violations, but arguing that the guilty pleas had not constituted a waiver of his right to challenge the conditions of parole. With regard to the first violation, McMillan argued that he “is entitled to [PCR] relief” because “he was not afforded due process” before parole conditions were imposed. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 203. With regard to the second violation, McMillan argued that the Board's imposition of Conditions Four and Twenty-Seven was “without individualized analysis of whether such conditions are reasonably related to [McMillan's] reintegration into the community[.]” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 204. McMillan further argued that “[t]here is a genuine issue of material fact whether a constitutional violation did occur in the [Board] not giving petitioner his full due process rights before he was released from incarceration[,]” that Indiana Code section 11-13-3-4(b) is “unconstitutionally vague, some of his other parole conditions are [overbroad] and his substantive due process rights have been violated.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 206. Finally, McMillan argued that “discovery needs to be had in order to discover whether particular facts may still exist[.]” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 220. On September 19, 2024, the post-conviction court granted the State's motion for summary disposition.

Discussion and Decision

[6] We initially note that McMillan proceeds pro se, but that “[a] litigant is not given special consideration by virtue of his pro se status.” Kelley v. State, 166 N.E.3d 936, 937 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). “[P]ro se litigants are held to the same standard regarding rule compliance as are attorneys duly admitted to the practice of law and must comply with the appellate rules to have their appeal determined on the merits.” Smith v. State, 822 N.E.2d 193, 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.

[7] McMillan raises several issues on appeal, including that the post-conviction court erred in granting summary disposition for the State. We review the grant of a motion for summary disposition in post-conviction proceedings “the same way as a motion for summary judgment.” Norris v. State, 896 N.E.2d 1149, 1151 (Ind. 2008). We review the matter de novo when the determinative issue is a matter of law, not fact. Id. Summary disposition should be granted only where “there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(g).

[8] We have little hesitation in concluding that McMillan has failed to present this court with a claim that would entitle him to relief. Whatever problems may exist with regard to the other grounds cited for revocation of McMillan's parole, he admitted at his second parole revocation hearing that he was “guilty of cutting [his] bracelet off[,]” thereby establishing a violation of Condition Twenty-Seven. Ex. F at 1:20–1:30. McMillan makes no challenge to this admission whatsoever, or to the scope of the condition itself, and the violation of just one condition of parole is sufficient for the Board to revoke parole. “If it is determined that the parolee did violate parole, the parole board may continue parole, with or without modifying the conditions, or revoke the parole and order the parolee imprisoned on either a continuous or intermittent basis.” Ind. Code § 11-13-3-10(c).

[9] Because McMillan admitted to violating Condition Twenty-Seven and makes no argument related to that admission or the condition itself, he cannot establish that the Board erred in revoking his parole. Consequently, we cannot say that the post-conviction court erred in granting the State's request for summary disposition.

[10] The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We believe McMillan was referencing his May 18, 2021, parole revocation hearing for this issue.

Bradford, Judge.

Pyle, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.