Andrew Sparling v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
34A02-1611-CR-2711
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jun 5, 2017Background
- Sparling was charged with Level 4 felony burglary and pleaded guilty under a written plea agreement that recommended placement in a "Therapeutic Community" while incarcerated, with the court to consider sentence modification upon successful completion.
- Presentence report noted Sparling's severe methamphetamine dependence and recommended placement in C.L.I.F.F., a Therapeutic Community program targeted to meth users.
- At plea and sentencing hearings the court acknowledged the plea recommendation; at sentencing the court stated it would accept the recommendation but then characterized C.L.I.F.F. as not being a "Therapeutic Community."
- The written judgment/order recommended C.L.I.F.F. participation only "if participation is not deemed to be Therapeutic Community," and the CCS expressly stated any therapy in custody would not be considered therapeutic community programming; the abstract of judgment listed "Purposeful Incarceration: No."
- Sparling moved to correct error to restore the agreed recommendation for Therapeutic Community placement; the trial court summarily denied the motion and Sparling appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court improperly modified the terms of the plea agreement by refusing to recommend Therapeutic Community placement | The court accepted the plea and must enforce its terms; the agreement required recommendation for placement in a Therapeutic Community | The court's language meant Sparling should be allowed in C.L.I.F.F. even if C.L.I.F.F. is not labeled a Therapeutic Community | The court reversed: the trial court improperly modified the plea agreement and must either enforce it (recommend Therapeutic Community placement) or reject it entirely |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. State, 17 N.E.3d 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (plea agreements are interpreted as contracts; clear terms control)
- Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35 (Ind. 2004) (trial court may accept or reject plea agreement but may not modify accepted terms)
- Pannarale v. State, 638 N.E.2d 1247 (Ind. 1994) (same principle regarding plea acceptance or rejection)
- State v. Holloway, 980 N.E.2d 331 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (court bound by all terms of accepted plea agreement within its power)
- Reffett v. State, 571 N.E.2d 1227 (Ind. 1991) (trial court bound to terms of plea once accepted)
- Beeler v. State, 959 N.E.2d 828 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (trial court speaks through its chronological case summary)
- Young v. State, 765 N.E.2d 673 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (encouragement to use CCS notation for clarity on entries)