Paul Steven Mills v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Aug 21 2020, 9:05 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Stacy R. Uliana Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Bargersville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Tyler G. Banks
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Paul Steven Mills, August 21, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-874
v. Interlocutory Appeal from the
Vermillion Circuit Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jill D. Wesch, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff Trial Court Cause No.
83C01-1906-F3-3
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-874 | August 21, 2020 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary
[1] Paul Steven Mills engaged in disruptive behavior while in jail awaiting trial.
The sheriff filed a motion for Mills to be transferred to a facility of the Indiana
Department of Correction (DOC) pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-33-11-1,
alleging that he represented a substantial threat to the safety of others. The trial
court granted the motion. Mills now appeals, asserting that the trial court
erred. We disagree and therefore affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Mills was confined in the Vermillion County Jail on multiple charges. On
January 31, 2020, Sheriff Michael Phelps and Jail Commander Derrek
Williams wrote a letter/motion to the trial court that reads,
I am submitting this letter as a request that [Mills] be ordered to
the [DOC] for safe keeping. Mr. Mills has been incarcerated in
the Vermillion County Jail since 06/05/2019 and in that time he
has been disruptive to the safety and security of the Vermillion
County Jail. On several occasions Paul has threatened to inflict
harm to himself with stating on several occasions that he wanted
to kill himself. The staff are under constant threat from Mills as
he is verbally abusive towards them trying to instigate a
confrontation often stating “I am going to get all of you”. Mr.
Mills poses a threat with bodily waste as he has urinated and
defecated in his cell, on the floor and out of the meal tray door.
Most recently Paul Mills has attacked another inmate and is back
in a holding cell due to not being able to safely house him in
general population. Mills takes constant supervision and poses a
significant burden on the staff of the Vermillion County Jail to
the point that he is a safety and security risk to the facility.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-874 | August 21, 2020 Page 2 of 7
Therefore pursuant to [Indiana Code Section] 35-33-11-1 it is my
opinion that Paul Mills does represent a substantial threat to the
safety of himself and others.
Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 160.
[3] Indiana Code Section 35-33-11-1 provides as follows:
Upon motion by the:
(1) sheriff;
(2) prosecuting attorney;
(3) defendant or his counsel;
(4) attorney general; or
(5) court;
alleging that an inmate in a county jail awaiting trial is in danger
of serious bodily injury or death or represents a substantial threat
to the safety of others, the court shall determine whether the
inmate is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, or
represents a substantial threat to the safety of others. If the court
finds that the inmate is in danger of serious bodily injury or death
or represents a substantial threat to the safety of others, it shall
order the sheriff to transfer the inmate to another county jail or to
a facility of the department of correction designated by the
commissioner of the department as suitable for the confinement
of that prisoner and provided that space is available. For the
purpose of this chapter, an inmate is not considered in danger of
serious bodily injury or death due to an illness or other medical
condition.
[4] On February 4, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on the motion, at which
Phelps, Williams, and Mills testified. Phelps testified that Mills “keeps an
entire [cell] block riled up on a regular basis” and battered another inmate “just
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-874 | August 21, 2020 Page 3 of 7
last week.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 5, 7. Mills was charged with level 6 felony battery for
that incident. 1 According to Phelps, Mills threw his urine and feces into his cell
and out “the meal tray doorway, which is where the meal trays are literally put
into the block[,]” and also “threatened to [throw] his feces and urine on staff.”
Id. at 5-6. Moreover, Mills “ran his head into the wall several times” and had
been in and out of a padded isolation cell due to his behavior. Id. at 7. Phelps
stated,
[Mills] says he’s going to keep doing it. And at the same time
you can’t put him back in a regular block because he may hurt
somebody else again. And this is constant to the point to where
you almost have to be with him all the time. We just don’t have
the staff to do that.
Id. Phelps acknowledged that he witnessed Mills “being paranoid” and that
Mills “has possibly some delusions[.]” Id. at 8. Williams offered similar
testimony and stated, “[W]e have to have constant interaction with [Mills]. It
takes our focus off the rest of the jail.” Id. at 16. The trial court took the matter
under advisement.
[5] The chronological case summary (CCS) indicates that two days later, Mills was
“released to DOC for safekeeping.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 7. The CCS
does not indicate that a written order was issued. On April 6, 2020, Mills filed
a motion requesting that the trial court issue a nunc pro tunc entry “to clarify
1
The trial court held an initial hearing on that charge after taking evidence on the motion to transfer.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-874 | August 21, 2020 Page 4 of 7
the extent of the action taken regarding safekeeping[,]” id. at 93, as well as a
belated motion to certify the order for interlocutory appeal. The motion to
certify notes that Mills had been transferred to Wabash Valley Correctional
Facility pending a competency evaluation that had been requested by his
counsel. The trial court granted the motion for and issued a nunc pro tunc
entry, which simply states that the court had “granted the request to transport
Mills to the DOC for safekeeping.” Appealed Order at 2. The court also
certified the order for interlocutory appeal. On May 8, 2020, this Court
accepted jurisdiction.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Mills contends that the trial court erred in granting the motion to transfer him
to the DOC, claiming that “[t]he State’s interpretation of what constitutes a
‘substantial threat to the safety of others’ is overly broad.” Appellant’s Br. at 12
(emphasis omitted). Mills presents his claim as an issue of statutory
interpretation, to be reviewed de novo. We believe that the ruling should be
reviewed under the clearly-erroneous standard. See Ind. Trial Rule 52(A) (“On
appeal of claims tried by the court without a jury … the court on appeal shall
not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous, and due regard
shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the
witnesses.”). “A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the materials
on appeal leaves us firmly convinced that a mistake has been made.” Hutchison
v. Trilogy Health Servs., LLC, 2 N.E.3d 802, 805 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). A general
judgment unaccompanied by any findings or conclusions will be affirmed on
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-874 | August 21, 2020 Page 5 of 7
any legal theory consistent with the evidence. Id. “We neither reweigh the
evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses.” Ponziano Constr. Servs., Inc.
v. Quadri Enters., LLC, 980 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
[7] A review of the hearing transcript does not leave us firmly convinced that a
mistake has been made in this case. Mills battered a fellow inmate severely
enough to warrant a level 6 felony battery charge, 2 regularly agitated the other
inmates in his cell block, threw his excrement outside his cell and threatened to
throw it on jail staff, and strained the jail’s limited resources, which, as the State
correctly observes, “could only serve to decrease the safety and security of
inmates and staff.” Appellee’s Br. at 14. The foregoing would amply support a
finding that Mills represented “a substantial threat to the safety of others” for
purposes of Indiana Code Section 35-33-11-1. Mills’s assertions to the contrary
are merely invitations to reweigh the evidence, which we may not and will not
do. Therefore, we affirm. 3
2
A simple battery, i.e., a knowing or intentional touching of another person in a rude, insolent, or angry
manner, is a class B misdemeanor; a level 6 felony battery involves “moderate bodily injury,” which means
“any impairment of physical condition that includes substantial pain.” Ind. Code §§ 35-42-2-1, 35-31.5-2-
204.5. The charging information for Mills’s battery alleges that he kicked another inmate in the head,
causing him to fall down and resulting in a concussion. Tr. Vol. 2 at 36.
3
Mills argues that we should require jail authorities to pursue civil commitment proceedings against an
inmate before they may seek to have the inmate transferred pursuant to Section 35-33-11-1. This is a public
policy matter for the legislature to consider.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-874 | August 21, 2020 Page 6 of 7
[8] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-874 | August 21, 2020 Page 7 of 7