84 N.E.3d 652
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- In Feb 2014 Robinson fled police, attempted to force entry into a residence, and was charged in Cause 377 with attempted residential entry (Class D) plus multiple drug- and misdemeanor-related counts; State also alleged habitual offender and habitual substance offender status.
- Robinson signed two open ("blind") written plea agreements in May 2015 that each paired a different underlying felony (methamphetamine possession or attempted residential entry) with the habitual substance offender allegation; sentencing was left to the court.
- On July 23, 2015 Robinson pled guilty to Count 1 (attempted residential entry, a non-substance offense) and admitted the habitual substance offender allegation; remaining charges and the habitual offender allegation were dismissed.
- Robinson missed PSI appointments and failed to appear timely for the September 24, 2015 sentencing; his counsel moved to continue but the trial court denied the continuance and proceeded to sentence, imposing 3 years on the Class D attempted residential entry and reserving the habitual substance offender enhancement until Robinson appeared.
- After Robinson’s arrest in Jan 2016, a supplemental sentencing hearing was held March 3, 2016; the court imposed a separate 3-year sentence for the habitual substance offender adjudication (1.5 years executed, 1.5 years suspended) to run consecutively.
- On appeal the court sua sponte found the habitual substance offender adjudication and enhancement illegal because the enhancement applies only to underlying substance offenses; it vacated the plea agreement and sentence and remanded for proceedings consistent with statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying continuance of sentencing | State opposed delay; argued court properly denied given Robinson’s missed PSI appointments and late notice | Robinson argued counsel was detained and asked for continuance for real estate closing and preparation | Not reached on merits; court sua sponte resolved case on sentencing-legality grounds |
| Whether habitual substance offender enhancement can attach to a non-substance offense | State had initially accepted plea pairing but acknowledged anomaly at sentencing and later recommended enhancement be applied | Robinson argued sentencing was open plea but sentencing must comply with law; enhancement applied despite underlying non-substance offense | Enhancement illegal: statute limits habitual substance offender enhancements to substance offenses; court vacated enhancement and plea agreement and remanded |
| Whether plea waiver of appeal/post-conviction bars relief from illegal sentence | State relied on waiver language in plea agreement | Robinson invoked waiver but argued sentence was open plea and must follow law | Waiver unenforceable as to illegal sentence; open-plea sentencing must comply with statute; appeal waiver invalid where sentence contrary to law |
| Remedy where plea agreement contemplates an illegal enhancement | State implicitly relied on parties’ agreement; court could have corrected sentencing error | Robinson sought appellate relief; if plea illusory he should not be bound | Court vacated entire plea agreement (contract void as violating statute) and remanded for a lawful plea/sentencing or further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Reffett v. State, 844 N.E.2d 1072 (Ind. Ct. App.) (appellate court must first consider legality of sentence before addressing appropriateness)
- Young v. State, 901 N.E.2d 624 (Ind. Ct. App.) (reviewing sua sponte illegal habitual substance offender sentencing and remanding)
- Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35 (Ind.) (defendant may not accept benefit of illegal plea-sentence and then complain; contracts violating statute are void)
- Crider v. State, 984 N.E.2d 618 (Ind.) (open pleas entitle defendant to assume trial court will sentence in accordance with law)
- Arnold v. State, 27 N.E.3d 315 (Ind. Ct. App.) (plea agreements are contractual; a contract made in violation of a statute is void)
- Bauer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 744 (Ind. Ct. App.) (habitual substance offender enhancement is an enhancement to the underlying sentence, not a separate sentence)
- Devaney v. State, 578 N.E.2d 386 (Ind. Ct. App.) (trial court duty to bring illegal sentences into compliance; enhanced sentence under habitual substance offender statute must be imposed)