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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT