Ian P.Y. Foxworthy v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 10, 2019
• Docket: 19A-CR-1457
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 10 2019, 8:49 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE John A. Kindley Curtis T. Hill, Jr. South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Angela N. Sanchez Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Ian P.Y. Foxworthy, December 10, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-1457 v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Michael R. Rader, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause Nos. 84D05-1708-F6-2557 84D05-1808-F5-3019

Bailey, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1457 | December 10, 2019 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] Ian P.Y. Foxworthy (“Foxworthy”) challenges the sanction imposed for failing

to report to Community Corrections. He contends—and the State agrees—the

trial court erred by imposing a sanction not authorized by a plea agreement.

[2] We reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History [3] In June 2018, Foxworthy was sentenced in Cause No. 84D05-1708-F6-2557.

The sentence—provided for in a plea agreement—was for an aggregate sentence

of five years, with one year suspended and four years on home detention

supervised by Community Corrections. In July 2018, the State filed a petition

to revoke the placement on home detention, alleging Foxworthy failed to timely

report to Community Corrections. During the pendency of this petition, the

State filed a second petition to revoke and, in a separate cause, charged

Foxworthy with the criminal offense of Failure to Return to Lawful Detention.

[4] Foxworthy entered a second plea agreement with the State. Under the second

plea agreement, Foxworthy would plead guilty to the new offense, with that

new sentence open for argument. As to the initial cause, Foxworthy would

admit to a violation. Moreover, “placement on Defendant’s sentence of four

(4) years shall be argued to the Court.” App. Vol. II at 70 (emphasis added).

[5] The trial court held a hearing at which Foxworthy pleaded guilty and admitted

to a violation, pursuant to the second plea agreement. The trial court accepted Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1457 | December 10, 2019 Page 2 of 4 the plea and set the matter for sentencing. At an ensuing sentencing hearing,

the court heard argument and “revoke[d] the balance of 5 years to be served in

the Indiana Department of Correction.” Id. at 73 (emphasis added).

[6] Foxworthy now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [7] “Trial courts enjoy considerable discretion in deciding whether to accept or

reject a proposed plea agreement.” Rodriguez v. State, 129 N.E.3d 789, 794 (Ind.

2019). However, “[i]f the court accepts a plea agreement, it shall be bound by

its terms,” Ind. Code § 35-35-3-3(e)—i.e., a court “possesses only that degree of

sentencing discretion provided in the [accepted] agreement,” Rodriguez, 129

N.E.3d at 794 (quoting St. Clair v. State, 901 N.E.2d 490, 493 (Ind. 2009)).

[8] Here, the court accepted the plea made pursuant to the second plea agreement.

The court was therefore bound by the terms of the agreement. Those terms

allowed for discretion in “placement on Defendant’s sentence of four (4) years”

in the initial cause. App. Vol. II at 70. However, the agreement did not permit

a sanction concerning the fifth year. Thus, the trial court erred by imposing a

sanction not authorized by the plea agreement. To remedy this error, we could

reverse and remand for resentencing. See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 968 N.E.2d 328,

334 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). However, from its remarks at sentencing, it is

apparent that the court wished to impose the longest-possible executed sentence

upon the violation. Tr. at 23 (“But I mean it’s clear to me . . . there’s no point

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1457 | December 10, 2019 Page 3 of 4 in putting you . . . in Community Corrections. You’ll just, I mean your pattern

is you . . . don’t comply.”). We therefore take the action that both Foxworthy

and the State now request—that is, we reverse and remand with instructions to

reduce the executed portion of the sentence imposed in Cause No. 84D05-1708-

F6-2557 to four years, which is consistent with the terms of the second plea

agreement.

[9] Reversed and remanded.

Kirsch, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1457 | December 10, 2019 Page 4 of 4