ILNews

COA orders trial court to award credit for time served

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled a trial court erred in calculating credit for time served but found the record was insufficient to prove that additional credit time should be awarded for the defendant’s participation in a drug-treatment program.

In Amanda D. Brown v. State of Indiana, No. 62A01-1105-CR-224, Amanda Brown was arrested on Oct. 14, 2010, on four marijuana-related charges. She remained incarcerated on those charges until Feb. 22, 2011, when she entered into an agreement, pleading guilty to Class D felony possession of marijuana, with all other charges dismissed. Under the agreement, Brown’s sentence was three years in the Department of Correction, with credit for 131 days served. The sentence was stayed under Indiana Code section 11-12-3.7-11, a statute allowing offenders to plead guilty and request placement in a pre-conviction diversion program. Brown was placed under the supervision of the Perry County Substance Abuse Court on Feb. 23.

Brown entered into an eight-month drug treatment program at a Vanderburgh County YWCA. On or about March 21, Brown told her YWCA program case manager that she would not pass a drug test if required to take one. The case manager told Brown that if she failed the drug test, she would return to jail, and Brown left the program without permission on March 22. That same day, the director of Perry County Community Corrections filed a notice of violation alleging that Brown had left the YWCA program without permission, and three days later, filed a second notice of violation alleging that Brown tested positive for marijuana on March 21. Brown was arrested on March 25 and was incarcerated while awaiting the trial court’s determination regarding the notices of violation.

At a hearing on April 20, Brown asked for a second chance and requested credit for time served and credit time for days spent in incarceration and in the pre-conviction diversion program.

The trial court found Brown was in violation of the diversion program, and the judge sentenced Brown to three years of incarceration, stating she would: “absolutely give you any time that you served on this case as credit. I will have my court reporter check any day that you served either before you went to the Y or after you went that you are being held currently. I will give you credit for all that time.”

In its written sentencing order, the trial court gave Brown 27 days credit for time served in the Perry County Jail between March 25 and April 20. No other credit for time served or credit time was given.

The state conceded that this case “should be remanded to clarify the trial court’s finding and to ensure that it is correct and fair to the Defendant.” The appeals court held that the state is correct in its claim that the trial court’s Feb. 23 written entry accepting the plea agreement indicates Brown is entitled to at least 131 days credit for time served. But, the COA held, the trial court did not incorporate the award of credit into its final sentencing order.

The appeals court instructed the trial court to issue an order showing credit for Brown’s two periods of pre-sentencing confinement. It also instructed the court to hold a hearing on whether Brown – while a participant in the YWCA program – was subject to the same restrictions that are imposed upon personal liberty in a prison or jail. Until that point is determined, the court held that it cannot conclude Brown would be entitled to additional credit time for time spent in the program.
 

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT