Dexter Berry v. State of Indiana, 10 N.E.3d 1243

Defendant Dexter Berry pleaded guilty under a multi-case plea agreement that capped the executed sentence at 10 years "initial executed sentence, open to placement," with the court allowed to suspend additional time and place suspended time on probation.
The plea agreement expressly allowed the court discretion over "where the Defendant will serve any executed portion of his sentence," but did not expressly authorize punitive or restrictive conditions of probation.
At the plea colloquy the court, defense counsel, and prosecutor discussed and understood the court’s authority to place the executed 10-year term, but did not discuss authority to impose restrictive placements during probation.
At sentencing the court imposed 10 years executed, 5 years suspended, with 2 years of probation and ordered the first year of probation to be served in work release (a restrictive placement).
The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to decide whether the work-release condition exceeded the court’s authority under the plea agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the plea agreement conferred authority to impose punitive/restrictive conditions of probation (work release) beyond the capped 10-year executed term	The State argued the court had authority to set probation conditions to enforce restitution and public safety (implicitly supporting placement for probation).	Berry argued the agreement only gave placement discretion for the executed 10-year term and did not authorize restrictive punitive probation conditions.	The court held the plea agreement did not specifically authorize punitive/restrictive placement for probation; ordering work release for probation exceeded the court’s authority.
Appropriate remedy for breach of the plea agreement	The State implicitly favored upholding the sentence imposed.	Berry requested that the work-release year be folded into the executed 10 years.	The court remanded: trial court must either accept or reject the plea agreement as written; if accepted, resentence consistent with its terms (not impose punitive probation placement unless authorized).

Freije v. State, 709 N.E.2d 323 (Ind. 1999) (trial courts bound by plea-agreement terms; punitive probation conditions must be specified in plea agreement)
Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35 (Ind. 2004) (plea agreements are contract-like; contract principles guide interpretation)
Disney v. State, 441 N.E.2d 489 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) (punitive obligations as probation conditions must be in plea agreement)
Antcliff v. State, 688 N.E.2d 166 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (plea language expressly leaving "terms of probation" to court was sufficient to authorize home detention)
Tubbs v. State, 888 N.E.2d 814 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (specific probation-condition provisions limit any broader implied sentencing discretion)
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Barabas, 975 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. 2012) (contract interpretation: read provisions harmoniously)
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (appellate standard and scope for revising sentences)