Keith L. Johnson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 46A03-1602-CR-329

On June 23, 2015, Keith L. Johnson acted as a lookout during an armed robbery; he was charged with robbery (Level 3), possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (Level 4), and later alleged to be an habitual offender.
Johnson entered a written plea agreement: plead guilty to robbery (Count I) and admit habitual-offender status (Count III); Count II would be dismissed.
The plea agreement expressly waived Johnson’s right to appeal any sentence or challenge the manner of sentencing, except for ineffective-assistance claims tied to the waiver’s negotiation.
At plea hearing Johnson acknowledged reading and discussing the plea agreement and stated he understood it would "somewhat limit" his ability to appeal; he also understood the potential penalties for the habitual-offender finding.
At sentencing the court imposed 10 years for robbery and erroneously entered a separate 20-year sentence for the habitual-offender finding to run consecutively, and the court advised Johnson he could file an appeal or motion to correct error; Johnson’s counsel indicated intent to appeal.
The Court of Appeals concluded Johnson waived his right to appeal his sentence under the written plea agreement but remanded for resentencing because the habitual-offender finding should have been applied as a sentencing enhancement to the robbery term, not as a separate consecutive sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Johnson)	Held
Whether Johnson waived his right to appeal his sentence under the plea agreement	The plea agreement contains an express, knowing, voluntary waiver of the right to appeal any sentence; waiver bars Johnson’s claims	Waiver was not knowing/voluntary; trial court’s statements limited waiver and misadvised him about appeal rights	Waiver is valid: Johnson knowingly and voluntarily waived appellate review of his sentence
Whether the trial court abused its discretion or imposed an inappropriate sentence by adding a 20-year habitual-offender sentence consecutive to robbery	Even if sentencing language was mistaken, habitual-offender issues could be addressed; remand may be appropriate to correct form of enhancement	The sentencing was excessive and inappropriate; trial court misapplied aggravating/mitigating analysis to habitual-offender enhancement	Court did not reach abuse/inappropriateness claims due to valid waiver, but remanded to correct procedural error: habitual-offender must be a sentence enhancement, not a separate consecutive sentence

Creech v. State, 887 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. 2008) (defendant may waive appellate review of sentence in a written plea agreement if waiver is knowing and voluntary)
Hendrix v. State, 759 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind. 2001) (habitual-offender finding is a sentence enhancement, not a separate crime or separate sentence)
United States v. Williams, 184 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 1999) (federal precedent that written plea agreements may validly waive appellate rights if knowing and voluntary)