110 N.E.3d 1156
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- Between April 25 and May 10, 2017, Moon sold cocaine to a confidential informant on four occasions; the State charged four Level 4 felony counts (Cause F4-797) and issued a warrant.
- On July 20, 2017, police stopped Moon for a moped stop, discovered a handgun, and arrested him; the State then charged additional offenses including a Level 4 unlawful possession by a serious violent felon and a Level 6 resisting law enforcement (Cause F4-860).
- Moon entered a consolidated plea: guilty to one Level 4 dealing in cocaine (F4-797) and one Level 6 resisting law enforcement (F4-860); other counts were dismissed. Plea capped the executed portion for F4-797 at ten years; F4-860 carried 2.5 years suspended to probation.
- At sentencing the court credited Moon with 245 actual days served and 82 days of good-time credit, sentenced him to 12 years on the Level 4 (10 executed, 2 suspended) and 2.5 years suspended on the Level 6, to run consecutively; court refused to recommend purposeful incarceration.
- Moon appealed, arguing (1) the court miscalculated credit time (actual days and good-time credit) and (2) his placement/sentence was inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credit for actual days served | State: trial court correctly counted days excluding sentencing date | Moon: he served 246 days (July 20, 2017–March 22, 2018) and should receive 246 days | Court: Moon served 245 days; sentencing day excluded by statute, so credit correct |
| Good-time credit calculation | State: good-time based on most serious convicted offense (Level 4) yields 82 days | Moon: court should have applied Level 6 classification and given more good-time credit | Court: statute requires using most serious conviction; court properly applied Class B rate for Level 4 conviction |
| Appropriateness of sentence/placement under Rule 7(B) | State: trial court tailored sentence to criminal history and rehab needs; placement discretionary | Moon: is chemically addicted and requested purposeful incarceration (therapeutic community); placement in DOC without recommendation is inappropriate | Court: Moon did not show compelling positive evidence of character or that placement is inappropriate; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Purcell v. State, 721 N.E.2d 220 (Ind. 1999) (distinguishing actual time-served credit and additional good-time credit)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate review of sentence should seek outliers, not reweigh every sentence)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (defendant bears burden to show sentence inappropriate)