Jay Paul Crouse, Jr. v. State of Indiana, 158 N.E.3d 388

Jay Paul Crouse Jr. was charged with four Class B felony armed robberies occurring on Jan. 22, 23, 27 and Feb. 1, 2013; he pled guilty under a plea agreement capping exposure at 40 years and waiving appeal of sentence if the court stayed within the plea terms.
At sentencing the trial court imposed four consecutive 10-year terms (aggregate 40 years), citing four separate victims; the State emphasized Crouse’s substance abuse and high risk to reoffend.
Crouse filed a pro se post-conviction petition (2014) and, with counsel, sought permission to file a belated appeal in 2019, asserting he only recently learned his waiver did not preclude appeals alleging illegal sentencing.
The trial court initially denied the belated-appeal petition, then after a motion to correct error granted permission to file a belated appeal.
On appeal the State argued Crouse was not an eligible defendant because he waived appeal rights in the plea; Crouse argued the waiver does not bar a challenge to an allegedly illegal sentence and also argued the consecutive sentences relied on an unsupported finding of four victims.
The Court of Appeals affirmed both the trial court’s grant of permission to file a belated appeal and the consecutive 10-year sentences (aggregate 40 years).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Crouse is an "eligible defendant" entitled to permission to file a belated appeal despite his plea waiver	The State: plea waiver bars appeal of sentence, so Crouse is not eligible under Post-Conviction Rule 2	Crouse: waiver applies only to sentences imposed in accordance with law; he alleges an illegal sentence so he is eligible	Court: affirmed grant of belated appeal permission; waiver does not preclude challenges to illegal sentences and Haddock reasoning applies
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the four 10-year sentences to run consecutively	The State: consecutive terms justified by four separate robberies, multiple victims, substance abuse, and high reoffense risk	Crouse: sentencing relied on an unsupported aggravator (four victims) because one clerk was robbed twice, so consecutive sentences were improper	Court: affirmed sentence; separate and distinct criminal acts support consecutive terms and other record evidence (four robberies, risk factors) cures any misstatement about number of victims

Crider v. State, 984 N.E.2d 618 (Ind. 2013) (plea-waiver of appeal applies only to sentences imposed in accordance with law)
Haddock v. State, 112 N.E.3d 763 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (defendant alleging illegal sentence may be eligible for belated appeal despite a general waiver)
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing and when remand is required)
Powell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (separate and distinct criminal acts can justify consecutive sentences)
Creech v. State, 887 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. 2008) (upholding appeal-waiver language in plea agreements where sentence is lawful)
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (trial court retains discretion under a plea cap but lesser than in an open plea)