Fry v. State
939 N.E.2d 687
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Fry was charged with battery in 2002 and pled guilty to a class B misdemeanor in 2004, receiving 180 days—30 executed, 150 suspended—with 365 days of probation, consecutive to a Henry County sentence.
- In 2005 Fry faced probation violations; warrants were issued but no subsequent action is shown in the record.
- On February 8, 2010, Fry moved to correct an erroneous sentence, arguing the combined term violated the statutory maximum for a misdemeanor.
- The trial court denied the motion; a CCS entry noted Fry could be placed on probation for one year despite the maximum penalty.
- The court recognized the face of the judgment might not clearly show whether the executed portion was fully served during probation, creating ambiguity about the total term.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals ultimately reversed and remanded, holding the combined term exceeded one year and instructing the trial court to determine completion or modify the sentence accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Fry's appeal moot? | Fry argues he has ongoing obligations; continuous incarceration suggests ongoing effect. | State contends no active sentence remains and the appeal is moot. | Mootness not conclusively shown; remand for clarification. |
| Did the court err in denying the motion to correct erroneous sentence by violating the one-year maximum for combined imprisonment and probation? | Combined term exceeded one year under Ind. Code § 35-50-3-1(b). | Court allegedly permitted probation within statutory framework; no facial error shown. | Combined term exceeds one year; reverse and remand for correction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. State, 847 N.E.2d 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (mootness when no relief possible)
- Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35 (Ind. 2004) (sentence moot after served)
- Irwin v. State, 744 N.E.2d 565 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (mootness considerations cited)
- Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783 (Ind. 2004) (facially erroneous sentencing limits for motion to correct)
- Mitchell v. State, 726 N.E.2d 1228 (Ind. 2000) (standard of review for motions to correct erroneous sentence)
- Copeland v. State, 802 N.E.2d 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (one-year cap on combined imprisonment and probation)
- Beck v. State, 790 N.E.2d 520 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (remand for correction when combined term exceeds one year)
- Merchant v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1058 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (probation periods and execution vs. probation sequencing)
- Ferrill v. State, 904 N.E.2d 323 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (probation commencement context)
- Kinnon v. State, 908 N.E.2d 666 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (probation timing considerations)