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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT