Judges are watching: Prison behavior can be a factor in resentencing decisions

Good behavior matters, especially in prison when an inmate wants a shorter sentence, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed this week.

A Marion County woman had appealed her resentencing on a kidnapping case in which a trial court had only shaved a year off her original sentence. That court had cited Jessika Aarius Terrell’s conduct in prison as an “aggravating factor” behind its decision to impose a nine-year sentence of prison and probation instead of an original 10-year sentence.

Terrell was originally convicted on three counts of felony kidnapping and three of felony interference with custody. The original sentence included four years in prison and six on probation. But the appeals court held that the two felonies constituted double jeopardy and sent the case back to trial court for resentencing.

During her March 3 resentencing, a Marion County Circuit Court factored in Terrell’s 10 write-ups while in state Department of Correction custody, according to court documents.

Terrell had argued that the trial court’s consideration of her in-prison conduct for the resentencing was out of bounds. She said the court should have considered her record up to the time of the original sentencing. She appealed her new sentence on March 31, according to court records.

In an Aug. 26 opinion, appeals court Judge Nancy Vaidik stated that Terrell was incorrect. The judge said a trial court can consider a defendant’s post-conviction conduct, citing Ousley v. State.

“The resentencing in Ousley followed a post-conviction relief proceeding, not a direct appeal as in this case,” Vaidik states. “But the opinion treats such proceedings as the same.”

Terrell also argued her write-ups weren’t proof of misconduct. Vaidik noted Terrell did not deny any misconduct or challenge the allegations during her resentencing hearing and that Terrell’s attorney acknowledged Terrell’s performance was “has not been perfect.”

Vaidik wrote that Terrell “has not shown that the trial court erred or abused its discretion by considering evidence of her conduct after the original sentencing.”

The case is Jessika Aarius Terrell v. State of Indiana, 26A-CR-851.