ILNews

Plea bars man from credit for time served on electronic monitoring

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Because a man entered into a plea agreement that he was not entitled to credit for the time he was on electronic monitoring as a condition of bond, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed his 14-year sentence.

John M. Weidman was placed on electronic monitoring after posting bond in Cause No. 03C01-1102-FA-898, in which he faced several counts involving drugs and attempted receiving stolen property. While on electronic monitoring, he was charged with Class D felony possession of marijuana in Cause No. 03C01-1205-FC-2659.

Weidman entered into a plea agreement on both causes to which he agreed he was not entitled to credit time toward his sentences for the period of time he was on electronic monitoring.

In John M. Weidman v. State of Indiana,  03A01-1306-CR-255, Weidman argued he is entitled to that credit time, but the Court of Appeals held is bound by the plea agreement because he made no argument that his plea was involuntary.

The Indiana Supreme Court has also held that a defendant may waive in a voluntary plea agreement the constitutional right to appellate review of a sentence.

“We therefore conclude that Weidman waived his right to claim that he was entitled to credit for the time he was on electronic monitoring. To allow such a challenge now would be to permit him to benefit from the terms of the plea agreement without upholding his end of the bargain struck in the plea agreement. And Weidman did benefit; in exchange for his plea, the State dismissed serious charges, and the trial court ordered the sentences on some of Weidman’s convictions to be served concurrently,” Judge Paul Mathias wrote.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend in December, but U.S. District Judge Robert Miller later reduced that to about $540,000 to put the damages for suffering under the statutory cap of $300,000.

  2. I was trying to remember, how did marriage get gay in Kentucky, did the people vote for it? Ah no, of course not. It was imposed by judicial fiat. The voted-for official actually represents the will of the majority in the face of an unelected federal judiciary. But democracy only is just a slogan for the powerful, they trot it out when they want and call it bigotry etc when they don't.

  3. Ah yes... Echoes of 1963 as a ghostly George Wallace makes his stand at the Schoolhouse door. We now know about the stand of personal belief over service to all constituents at the Carter County Clerk door. The results are the same, bigotry unable to follow the directions of the courts and the courts win. Interesting to watch the personal belief take a back seat rather than resign from a perception of local power to make the statement.

  4. An oath of office, does it override the conscience? That is the defense of overall soldier who violates higher laws, isnt it? "I was just following orders" and "I swore an oath of loyalty to der Fuhrer" etc. So this is an interesting case of swearing a false oath and then knowing that it was wrong and doing the right thing. Maybe they should chop her head off too like the "king's good servant-- but God's first" like St Thomas More. ...... We wont hold our breath waiting for the aclu or other "civil liberterians" to come to her defense since they are all arrayed on the gay side, to a man or should I say to a man and womyn?

  5. Perhaps we should also convene a panel of independent anthropological experts to study the issues surrounding this little-known branch of human sacrifice?

ADVERTISEMENT