Larry D. Russell, Jr. v. State of Indiana, 2015 Ind. LEXIS 569

Russell pled guilty to five counts of class C felony neglect of a dependent and two counts of class C felony criminal confinement; the State dismissed remaining counts.
The plea left sentencing to the trial court but expressly capped Russell’s aggregate sentence at ten years, citing Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(c).
The factual basis reflected repeated, severe abuse of three adopted teens over months — the conduct was not a single "episode of criminal conduct."
At sentencing the trial court imposed concurrent and consecutive eight-year terms by victim but limited the aggregate to ten years pursuant to the statutory provision cited in the plea.
The Court of Appeals concluded the statutory cap did not apply (offenses were not a single episode), found the mistaken statutory reference a material, nonseverable term, and held the plea void; this Court granted transfer.
The Indiana Supreme Court majority held the plea agreement enforceable because Russell pleaded knowingly and voluntarily and received the benefit of the bargain despite the parties’ and court’s erroneous statutory premise; the dissent would remand for reconsideration because the trial court relied on a legal mistake.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a plea agreement containing a mistaken statutory sentencing cap is void	Russell: plea valid; he pleaded knowingly and voluntarily and received the bargain benefit, so the mistake should not void plea	State: same — enforce the agreement; parties and court relied on mistaken statutory interpretation but the defendant benefited	Majority: Enforce the plea; where plea is knowing/voluntary and defendant gets the benefit, a later-discovered legal error in sentencing provision does not void the plea (Lee governs)
Whether the trial court’s reliance on an incorrect statutory cap constituted an abuse of discretion requiring remand	Court of Appeals / Dissent: trial court relied on the error in accepting and imposing sentence; we cannot be sure it would have accepted the plea absent the mistake, so remand to reconsider acceptance is required	Russell / State: the court’s mistaken application did not change the defendant’s benefit or the voluntariness of the plea; no compelling reason to set aside	Majority: Not an abuse warranting vacatur; sentencing error in plea does not invalidate agreement when defendant benefits. Dissent: would reverse and remand for reconsideration because the court relied on an erroneous legal premise

Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35 (Ind. 2004) (where plea is knowing, voluntary, and defendant received benefit, plea should not be set aside because sentence later determined invalid)
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (trial court abuses discretion if sentencing statement rests on reasons improper as a matter of law)
Collins v. State, 509 N.E.2d 827 (Ind. 1987) (defendant may not accept illegal sentencing provision and later challenge it after benefiting)
Berry v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1243 (Ind. 2014) (trial court may lack authority to impose terms not contemplated in plea; where ambiguity exists, remand may be appropriate so court can reconsider acceptance)