Bernard Arnez Dillon v. State of Indiana
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. Nov 08 2021, 8:25 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Bernard Dillon Pendleton, Indiana Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General Steven Hosler Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Bernard Arnez Dillon, November 8, 2021 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-PC-586 v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff Appeal from the Lake Superior Court The Honorable Natalie Bokota, Judge The Honorable Kathleen A. Sullivan, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 45G02-1911-PC-22 Vaidik, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-PC-586 | November 8, 2021 Page 1 of 2 [1] In 2017, Bernard Arnez Dillon pled guilty to Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent resulting in death under a written plea agreement that provided he would be sentenced to “forty (40) years in the Department of Correction with five (5) years suspended and served on Probation.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 17. The trial court imposed the sentence called for by the agreement. Id. at 36 (Abstract of Judgment); Ex. p. 16 (trial court explaining it was sentencing Dillon according “to the terms of the plea agreement”). [2] In 2019, Dillon sought post-conviction relief, arguing he agreed to a sentence of thirty years with five years suspended, not forty years with five years suspended. In support, he noted there are transcripts of the guilty-plea and sentencing hearings that say thirty years. However, the post-conviction court listened to audio recordings of both hearings (Respondent’s Ex. 1) and confirmed the recordings say forty years. See Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 13. In other words, the transcripts contained scrivener’s errors.1 On appeal, Dillon repeats his argument but doesn’t acknowledge the post-conviction court’s finding that the audio recordings say forty years. Accordingly, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. [3] May, J., and Molter, J., concur. 1 A corrected guilty-plea transcript was prepared in September 2020. See Ex. p. 6. As far as we know, no corrected sentencing transcript was prepared. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-PC-586 | November 8, 2021 Page 2 of 2
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.
