An Indiana trial court must enter an amended Abstract of Judgment for an offender recommended for the Indiana Department of Correction’s Purposeful Incarceration program after the Indiana Court of Appeals determined the initial order did not explicitly allow for a sentence modification.
In Hakeen Hogan v. State of Indiana, 71A05-1702-CR-278, Hakeen Hogan pleaded guilty to two counts of Class B felony robbery and two counts of Class B felony robbery, and the St. Joseph Superior Court sentence him to 46 years, with 16 years suspended to probation. At the end of the sentencing hearing, the trial judge told Hogan he would note on the Abstract of Judgment that he could be a candidate for the Purposeful Incarceration program if he completed a therapeutic community.
The final Abstract of Judgment recommended that Hogan be evaluated for therapeutic community and noted he “appears to be an appropriate candidate for the DOC’s Purposeful Incarceration program.” Hogan, however, filed a pro se motion to amend that order to reflect that he should be placed in the Purposeful Incarceration program and that the court would consider sentence modification when he completed the therapeutic community program.
The trial court denied the motion, finding it was a motion for modification of sentence. The Indiana Court of Appeals, however, agreed with Hogan that the Abstract of Judgment should have included language explicitly telling the DOC that the court would allow Hogan’s placement in the purposeful incarceration program and that it would consider sentence modification.
“The absence of such language rendered Hogan’s Abstract of Judgment erroneous,” Judge Melissa May wrote Monday. “…We reverse the trial court’s denial of Hogan’s motion and remand for the trial court to enter an Abstract of Judgment that recommends Hogan be placed in Purposeful Incarceration and states that, after Hogan successfully completes an appropriate therapeutic program, the court will consider a petition to modify Hogan’s sentence.”