Ivy v. State, 2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 812

Ivy was charged in 2004 with burglary (Class B), theft (Class D), and resisting law enforcement (Class A misdemeanor) and later faced an habitual offender allegation.
In 2005 Ivy pled guilty to burglary and the habitual offender; theft and resisting charges were dismissed under the plea agreement.
The plea agreement stated Ivy would receive a sixteen-year executed sentence and waived any further request to modify the sentence under I.C. XX-XX-X-XX.
The trial court sentenced Ivy to six years for burglary, enhanced by ten years for habitual offender status, and indicated possible last-two-years placement in Community Corrections' work release program.
The court conditioned placement on good conduct and treatment within the Department of Correction, with potential last-two-years work release if conditions were met.
In 2010 Ivy filed a fourth Motion for Direct Placement in Community Corrections; a master commissioner denied the motion, and Ivy appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Authority of the master commissioner to enter final judgment	Ivy contends the master commissioner lacked authority to rule.	State argues the master commissioner has authority to rule and issue final orders.	Commissioner Kroh had authority to enter final judgment.
Effect of the waiver on modification requests	Ivy asserts the waiver does not bar modification relief due to conflicting sentencing statements.	State argues the waiver of modification rights precludes Ivy from seeking modification.	Waiver precludes Ivy from seeking modification under the plea agreement.

Creech v. State, 887 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. 2008) (statements at sentencing do not void knowing waiver of appeal rights)
Akens v. State, 929 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (invalid advisement on appeal does not affect waiver)
Smith v. State, 893 N.E.2d 1149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (master commissioner authority to issue final orders in criminal cases)