Dean E. Blanck v. Indiana Department of Corrections (3/30/04 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure; Constitutional Law]
Najam, Judge
Dean Blanck appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint against the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) and the Miami Correctional Facility. He raises a single issue on appeal, namely, whether the trial court erred when it dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We reverse and remand. * * *Phelps Dodge v. Department of Local Government Finance (4/28/04 IndTaxCt NOT FOR PUBLICATION) [Property Tax]Relying on [Zimmerman v. State, 750 N.E.2d 337 (Ind. 2001)], the state asserts categorically that, “the result is no different because Blanck claims the violation of a statutory right.” We cannot agree. Concurring in Zimmerman, Justice Boehm recognized “two open questions” the defendant did not raise in his complaint. Specifically, the defendant “made no claim that Indiana Code [S]ection 11-11-5-4 grants him a statutory right which is protected by Article I, Section 12’s open courts clause.” Id. Justice Boehm went on to state:
We are left, then, with two open questions for another day. First, does Indiana Code section 11-11-5-4, which prohibits the Department of Correction[] from imposing certain disciplinary actions, create a statutory right? If so, does Article I, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution guarantee inmates a right to judicial review of disciplinary proceedings allegedly in violation of that statute?Here, as we have stated, Blanck’s complaint alleges in part that “he has a state created statutory right by the provisions of Ind. Codes § 11-11-5-4, § 11-11-5-5, § 11-11-5-6, § 11-11-5-7 and § 11-10-1-7 protected by the State Constitution,” and that “Article [I], Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution ‘Open Courts Clause’ is a guaranteed right to judicial review of state laws where prison officials have imposed arbitrary forms of disciplinary punishments in direct violation of these statutes [i.e.] I.C. 11-11-5-4.” Thus, Blanck has raised legal questions not addressed in Zimmerman. Indeed, Blanck’s complaint raises issues of first impression, and he is entitled to his day in court to have those issues decided on the merits. In sum, we reject the State’s argument that Zimmerman is dispositive and conclude that Blanck’s complaint states allegations upon which relief could be granted. Thus, the trial court erred when it dismissed Blanck’s complaint. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
BAKER, J., and MAY, J., concur.
"The sole issue for the Court to decide is whether the State Board erred when it refused to award obsolescence depreciation to PD’s improvements." Affirmed.
The Dalton Foundries, Inc. v. Department of Local Government Finance (4/28/04 IndTaxCt NOT FOR PUBLICATION) [RRS Deduction]
"Thus, it is clear to the Court that Dalton’s RRS application was denied because it was untimely filed. Having stated in Dalton I that the Assessor had discretion to deny an untimely filed Form RRS-1, and in light of the filing deadlines prescribed by statute, the Court cannot say that the State Board abused its discretion in affirming the Assessor’s denial of Dalton’s RRS deduction application."
Posted by Marcia Oddi at April 29, 2004 02:13 PM