Kevin Chandler, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] In 2007, Kevin Chandler was convicted of Class A felony attempted murder and sentenced to 40 years. See Cause No. 49G01-0703-FA-43831. We affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal. See Chandler v. State, No. 49A02-0709-CR-830, 2008 WL 2042797 (Ind. Ct. App. May 14, 2008) (mem.), trans. denied. In July 2025, Chandler, pro se, filed a document in FA-43831 called “Motion of Breach of Contract by I.D.O.C.” Chandler alleged that he entered into a contract with the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) in 2021 regarding educational credit time and that the DOC had breached the contract. He asked the trial court to order the DOC to apply the credit time per the contract terms. The court denied the motion.

[2] Chandler, still pro se, now appeals. We affirm. As the State points out, when a defendant argues that the DOC has mistakenly failed to award earned credit time, the defendant “must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking relief from a court.” Neff v. State, 888 N.E.2d 1249, 1252 (Ind. 2008). That is, the defendant “must show what the relevant DOC administrative grievance procedures are, and that they have been exhausted at all levels.” Young v. State, 888 N.E.2d 1253, 1254 (Ind. 2008). Here, Chandler includes a letter from the DOC in his appendix. But it is unclear from this letter whether Chandler has exhausted the relevant grievance procedures, as the letter twice states that review is “pending.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 3.

[3] But even assuming Chandler has exhausted the relevant grievance procedures, a petition for post-conviction relief is the proper vehicle for raising this issue. See Ellis v. State, 58 N.E.3d 938, 940 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (citing Young, 888 N.E.2d at 1256-57), trans. denied. Chandler, however, filed the motion in the underlying criminal case. And to the extent Chandler claims that this is a stand-alone breach-of-contract case, he cites no authority that it was properly brought in the underlying criminal case.

[4] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Scheele, J., concur.