966 N.E.2d 675
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Crider pled guilty to theft as a class D felony and admitted habitual offender status.
- Plea agreement provided three-year sentence for theft, plus three years for habitual offender enhancement.
- Original plea draft contemplated concurrent sentencing with Tippecanoe County habitual offender sentence, but this provision was crossed out and revised.
- Crider waived his right to appeal any sentence within the plea agreement terms.
- At sentencing, Crider challenged the court's authority to order the two habitual enhancements to be served consecutively; the court ordered consecutive service.
- Appellate court dismissed the appeal; the majority found waiver under the plea agreement; dissent would remand for modification based on illegality of consecutive habitual enhancements.
- Crider argues the sentence is illegal due to prohibited consecutive habitual enhancements; the State argues he waived this challenge by entering into the plea agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of challenge to consecutive habitual sentence | Crider argues the waiver does not validate an illegal sentence | State contends Crider knowingly waived appeal rights | Waived; appeal dismissed. |
| Legality of consecutive habitual offender enhancements | Crider contends consecutive enhancements are not authorized by statute | State relies on waiver and statutory precedent | Generally improper, but waived; no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Breaston v. State, 907 N.E.2d 992 (Ind. 2009) (consecutive habitual offender enhancements not authorized by statute)
- Starks v. State, 523 N.E.2d 735 (Ind. 1988) (historical context for habitual offender sentencing)
- Smith v. State, 774 N.E.2d 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (paper on habitual offender sentencing considerations)
- Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35 (Ind. 2004) (upholds illegal sentences when defendant pleads to gain favorable outcome)