ILNews

Judges differ on pretrial credit award

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Each judge on an Indiana Court of Appeals panel weighed in with a separate opinion as to how much pretrial credit time a defendant, who pleaded guilty to one charge - other charges were dismissed - is entitled to, or if he is entitled to any time at all.

Chief Judge John Baker, and Judges Edward Najam and Cale Bradford authored separate opinions on the issue in Keland L. Brown v. State of Indiana, No. 34A05-0812-CR-716.

Keland Brown was arrested March 6, 2008, on various dealing, possession, and false informing charges. While he was in jail on those charges, the state filed four additional charges against him and "arrested" him April 10 on those charges. He remained in jail until his October 15 sentencing hearing, at which he pleaded guilty to dealing in cocaine as a Class B felony, one of the four charges added April 10. In exchange for the guilty plea, the state dismissed all the other pending charges and sentenced him to 10 years in prison.

Judge Najam, who authored the lead opinion, believed Brown was entitled to credit time from April 10 to October 15, the day of his sentencing hearing. He cited Dolan v. State, 120 N.E.2d 1364, 1372 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981), and Stephens v. State, 735 N.E.2d 278, 284, (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), to support his decision.

"Here, while some of those charges - and the credit time accrued against those charges - were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement, Brown nonetheless still accrued credit time towards his eventual sentence from April 10 to October 15. The trial court erred in not awarding Brown credit for that period of time served," Judge Najam wrote.

Judge Kirsch opined that when a trial court is sentencing pursuant to a plea agreement that resolves multiple charges, including the charge for which the defendant is being held in jail, that credit time should be accorded against the sentence ultimately imposed absent any provision in the plea agreement to the contrary.

Chief Judge Baker wrote that Dewees v. State, 444 N.E.2d 332, 332 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983), which ruled Dewees wasn't entitled to any credit which may have accrued on a separate charge, was instructive to Brown's situation. Combining the decision in Dewees, with the rule that credit is to be applied for confinement time that is a "result of the criminal charge for which sentence is being imposed," the chief judge believed the trial court properly denied Brown's request for pretrial credit time.

The judges did unanimously agree that the trial court didn't abuse its discretion by not identifying Brown's guilty plea as a mitigating factor during sentencing and that his sentence is appropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).

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