Malique Starks, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] After pleading guilty to Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Malique Starks was sentenced to one year in jail. He appeals his sentence, claiming the trial court relied on an improper aggravating factor and arguing that his sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). But because Starks has fully served his sentence, his appeal is moot. We dismiss.

Facts

[2] On October 7, 2025, Starks pleaded guilty to Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement by fleeing, based on a traffic stop incident during which a co-occupant of the car shot and wounded a police officer. The trial court sentenced Starks that same day to one year in the Marion County Jail with six days of credit. The court advised Starks that with day-for-day credit he would “get out in 6 months.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 23.

[3] After his motion to correct error was denied, Starks timely filed his notice of appeal on December 23, 2025, challenging only his sentence. Starks's appeal was finalized and transmitted to this Court on May 14, 2026.

[4] Then, on May 28, 2026, this Court ordered Starks to: (1) verify whether he had fully served his sentence and had been released from custody; and (2) show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as moot. Order (filed May 28, 2026) (citing Fry v. State, 939 N.E.2d 687, 688 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (recognizing claim as to validity of sentence is rendered moot once sentence is fully served)).

[5] Three days later, Starks's counsel filed in response a “Verification of Sentence Completion” which reads, in relevant part:

[C]ounsel for Appellant ․ verifies that [A]ppellant has completed his one year executed sentence and was released from custody at Marion County Jail on April 4, 2026. There were no other sentence requirements․ Counsel has no information that would exempt this appeal from being moot under Fry v. State, 939 N.E.2d 687, 688 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

Verification of Sentence Completion (filed May 31, 2026). Counsel attached jail records reflecting a release date of April 4, 2026.

Discussion and Decision

[6] On appeal, Starks does not challenge his conviction but disputes only his sentence. He asks this Court to “remand the case to the trial court and order the sentence to the days served with no further court supervision” and to direct his “discharge.” Appellant's Br., pp. 17-18. But Starks has since confirmed that he has been released from custody and has no remaining sentence requirements.

[7] Indiana courts have repeatedly held that, once a “sentence has been served, the issue of the validity of the sentence is rendered moot.” Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35, 40 n.2 (Ind. 2004) (quoting Irwin v. State, 744 N.E.2d 565, 568 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)). This is because “a case is deemed moot when no effective relief can be rendered to the parties before the court.” Mosley v. State, 908 N.E.2d 599, 603 (Ind. 2009).

[8] Because the only relief Starks sought is no longer available, his claim is moot. See id. Starks verified the completion of his sentence and identified no reason why his appeal is not moot. He does not provide any argument as to why we should consider his claim's merits despite its mootness. See id. (recognizing that moot claims are dismissed, but exceptions exist for issues that are likely to recur or of great public importance). We therefore dismiss.

Weissmann, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.