Ronald Rostochak v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. Oct 18 2018, 6:40 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Ronald Rostochak New Castle, Indiana Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana AMICI CURIAE PRO SE Jesse R. Drum Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana Timothy Galey Ryan Willoughby Brian Woodring Jesse Cole Joel A. Richardson Gregory Owens Mason Brown Robert Mow Dallas Hartman James Kanable Steven E. Malloch Jesston L. Cora Ryan Myers Ronald Sweatt Jonathan Crosson New Castle, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 92A05-1710-CR-2316 | October 18, 2018 Page 1 of 5 Ronald Rostochak, October 18, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 92A05-1710-CR-2316 v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. Appeal from the Whitley Circuit Court The Honorable James R. Heuer, Senior Judge Trial Court Cause No. 92C01-0911-FA-132 Kirsch, Judge. [1] Ronald Rostochak (“Rostochak”) appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for educational credit. Because Rostochak has already received the educational credit that he requests, we dismiss his appeal as moot. Facts and Procedural History [2] From September 2007 to December 2008, Rostochak molested M.E., beginning when she was twelve years old. Rostochak v. State, No. 92A05-1112-CR-688, at *1-2 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2012), trans. denied. In 2011, he was convicted of Class A felony child molesting and sentenced to thirty years, with five years suspended, for a total executed sentence of twenty-five years. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 35-37. From 1996 through 1997, prior to incarceration, Rostochak had earned forty-two credit hours at University of Northwestern Ohio. Id. at 18. On August 9, 2014, while incarcerated, Rostochak completed his associate degree at Grace College by earning eighteen more credit hours from January to August 2014. Id. at 17-18. The Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 92A05-1710-CR-2316 | October 18, 2018 Page 2 of 5 awarded Rostochak 110 days of educational credit after the completion of his associate degree. Id. at 17. [3] On July 28, 2017, Rostochak filed an informal complaint, requesting that he be awarded one year of educational credit for his associate degree. Id. at 15. On August 3, 2017, a member of the DOC staff, after reviewing Rostochak’s complaint, responded that this was “a legislative issue.” Id. On August 8, 2017, Rostochak filed an offender grievance, which again requested that he be awarded one year of educational credit for completing his associate degree. Id. at 14. On August 28, 2017, DOC staff responded that classification issues cannot be resolved through the grievance process and that such issues are to be appealed through their own appeal process. Id. at 13. On September 5, 2017, Rostochak filed a classification appeal, which the DOC denied. Id. at 12. [4] On September 11, 2017, Rostochak filed a petition for educational credit with the trial court, which was denied the same day. Id. at 4-5, 22. After the trial court denied Rostochak’s petition for educational credit, he filed this appeal. On March 20, 2018, Rostochak filed a motion to certify his appeal as a class action, and in the motion, he admitted “that the Appellant has now received the full 365 days educational credit for completion of his associate[] degree he requested in his appeal.” Motion to Certify Appeal as a Class Action at 2. Discussion and Decision [5] Rostochak argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his petition for educational credit. He asserts that because he completed an Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 92A05-1710-CR-2316 | October 18, 2018 Page 3 of 5 associate degree, he is entitled to the full 365-day educational credit. However, the record shows that Rostochak has received the educational credit he requests. [6] “[W]here the principal questions at issue cease to be of real controversy between the parties, the errors assigned become moot questions, and this court will not retain jurisdiction to decide them.” Sainvil v. State, 51 N.E.3d 337, 342 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. Therefore, when we are not able to provide effective relief upon an issue, “the issue is deemed moot, and we will not reverse the trial court’s determination where absolutely no change in the status quo will result.” Id. Here, Rostochak concedes that the DOC awarded him “the full 365 days [of] educational credit for [the] completion of his associate[] degree” he is requesting on appeal. Motion to Certify Appeal as a Class Action at 2. Accordingly, there is no effective relief for this court to give Rostochak, and his appeal is moot. [7] Although we do not usually review moot issues, “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) (citing In re Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 32, 37 (Ind. 1991)), trans. denied. “‘Cases in this category typically raise important policy concerns and present issues that are likely to recur.’” Id. (quoting Mosley v. State, 908 N.E.2d 599, 603 (Ind. 2009)). Rostochak’s issue on appeal only affects a specific subset of prisoners -- those who committed their crimes after July 1, 1993, when the educational credit statute was added, see Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 92A05-1710-CR-2316 | October 18, 2018 Page 4 of 5 Budd v. State, 935 N.E.2d 746, 752-53 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (stating that there was no educational credit statute until Indiana Code section 35-50-6-3.3 was added in 1993), completed some courses before their incarceration, and finished their degrees after July 1, 2014, when subsection (e) was added to Indiana Code section 35-50-6-3.3. Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3.3(e) (“Credit time earned under this section must be directly proportional to the time served and course work completed while incarcerated.”). This case does not present a question of great public interest, and we will not deviate from the general rule of not deciding moot cases. We, therefore, dismiss Rostochak’s appeal as moot.1 [8] Dismissed. Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur. 1 Rostochak also raises an issue regarding his concern that the DOC will miscalculate his educational credit when he completes his bachelor’s degree. However, we do not reach such issue for any one of several reasons. First, Rostochak has not exhausted his administrative remedies regarding his claim. “‘When educational credit time is denied, a person must exhaust his administrative remedies within the DOC before appealing to a court because determinations altering credit time are the responsibility of the DOC.’” Ellis v. State, 58 N.E.3d 938, 941 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Stevens v. State, 895 N.E.2d 418, 419 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)), trans. denied. Second, Rostochak did not raise this issue to the trial court and it is, therefore, waived. Leatherman v. State, 101 N.E.3d 879, 885 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (“[A] party may not present an argument or issue on appeal unless the party raised that argument or issue before the trial court. In such circumstances the argument is waived.”). Third, Rostochak’s claim is not yet ripe for review because he has not yet finished his bachelor’s degree and received a calculation of educational credit from the DOC. “Ripeness ‘relates to the degree to which the defined issues in a case are based on actual facts, rather than on abstract possibilities, and are capable of being adjudicated on an adequately developed record.’” Dixon v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 56 N.E.3d 47, 52 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Ind. Dep’t of Envtl. Mgmt. v. Chem. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 643 N.E.2d 331, 336 (Ind. 1994)). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 92A05-1710-CR-2316 | October 18, 2018 Page 5 of 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.