Jent v. State, 031319 INCA, 18A-PC-785
|Opinion Judge:||Pyle, Judge.|
|Party Name:||Michael R. Jent, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.|
|Attorney:||APPELLANT, PRO SE Michael R. Jent Pendleton, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Monika Prekopa Talbot Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana|
|Judge Panel:||Najam, J., and Crone, J., concur.|
|Case Date:||March 13, 2019|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Indiana|
Appeal from the Allen Superior Court The Honorable David M. Zent, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D06-1711-PC-107
APPELLANT, PRO SE Michael R. Jent Pendleton, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Monika Prekopa Talbot Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Statement of the Case
[¶1] Michael Jent ("Jent"), pro se, appeals the post-conviction court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Concluding that Jent has failed to show that the post-conviction court erred by denying his petition for post-conviction relief, we affirm the post-conviction court's judgment.
[¶2] We affirm.
Whether the post-conviction court erred by summarily denying Jent's petition for post-conviction relief.
[¶3] In November of 2002, the State charged Jent with Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy, Class A misdemeanor interfering with the reporting of a crime, Class B misdemeanor public intoxication, and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. The trial court held an initial hearing, during which it advised Jent of his constitutional rights, which he waived. At the hearing, Jent also pled guilty to all four misdemeanors and was sentenced to 365 days of unsupervised probation.
[¶4] Fifteen years later, in November of 2017, Jent filed a petition for post- conviction relief ("PCR"). Jent alleged that his guilty plea was not knowingly made, that there was an insufficient factual basis to support his guilty plea, and that he was denied the assistance of guilty plea counsel. Jent further alleged that on the date of his hearing, he "went to court while he was still intoxicated." (App. 10). In its answer, the State argued that Jent's issues were waived by his guilty plea. The State also argued that his allegations did not create a genuine issue of material fact because they did not allege specific facts which, if proved, would suffice to establish any grounds for post-conviction...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP