Michael B. Purdue v. State of Indiana, 51 N.E.3d 432

Background

Michael B. Purdue was arrested on January 29, 2015; State later filed Cause No. 1030 (Level 6 theft; Class A resisting) on February 27, 2015. He was briefly held Jan 29–31 and released.
Purdue was arrested again March 10, 2015 on separate causes (Cause Nos. 1180 and 1246) and remained in Bartholomew County Jail from March 10 to July 16, 2015 (128 days).
Purdue pled guilty on June 8, 2015 to the two counts in Cause No. 1030 in exchange for dismissal of Cause Nos. 1180 and 1246; the plea and sentencing proceedings referenced all three cause numbers.
The Presentence Investigation Report listed 131 actual jail days; at sentencing the court and parties acknowledged 3 days credit for Jan 29–31 but the State and trial court denied credit for the 128 days (March 10–July 16) on the ground those days related to dismissed causes.
Trial court imposed consecutive sentences and awarded only 3 days credit. Purdue appealed, arguing he was entitled to the additional 128 days of accrued time (and corresponding good-time credit if applicable).
The Court of Appeals held the 128 days were pre-sentence confinement awaiting trial on Cause No. 1030 (among others) and reversed, ordering the court to grant the full 131 days (3 + 128) and, if appropriate, equivalent good-time credit, deducted from the aggregate consecutive sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Purdue)	Held
Whether Purdue was entitled to credit for 128 days of pre-sentence confinement (Mar 10–Jul 16) against sentences for Cause No. 1030	The 128 days were served solely on Cause Nos. 1180 and 1246 (later dismissed) and thus are not "the result of" Cause No. 1030; credit should be denied	The 128 days were served while Cause No. 1030 was pending and the causes were interrelated during plea negotiations; he is entitled to accrued time (and applicable good-time) for those 128 days	Reversed: Purdue entitled to 128 additional days of accrued time (plus comparable good-time if appropriate); credit deducted from aggregate consecutive sentences

Key Cases Cited

Rudisel v. State, 31 N.E.3d 984 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (pre-sentence confinement credit and classification discussion)
Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783 (Ind. 2004) (credit time and appellate presumption regarding reporting of credit)
Bischoff v. State, 704 N.E.2d 129 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (defendant bears burden to prove entitlement to credit when confinement spans multiple jurisdictions)
Dolan v. State, 420 N.E.2d 1364 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (credit applies to the sentence for the offense for which presentence time was served; rejects overly broad reading of statute)
Hall v. State, 944 N.E.2d 538 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (credit may apply to each concurrent term; treatment of credit for multiple charges)
Brown v. State, 262 Ind. 629, 322 N.E.2d 708 (Ind. 1975) (pre-sentence imprisonment treated as punishment; purpose of credit statutes)
State v. Lotaki, 4 N.E.3d 656 (Ind. 2014) (for consecutive sentences, credit is deducted from aggregate total, not each sentence)
Perry v. State, 13 N.E.3d 909 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (pre-sentence jail time credit is statutory right; trial courts lack discretion to deny it)
Molden v. State, 750 N.E.2d 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (same principle regarding mandatory nature of pre-sentence credit)
Nutt v. State, 451 N.E.2d 342 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (credit statutes aim to equalize confinement time among similarly situated inmates)
House v. State, 901 N.E.2d 598 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (credit-time statutes are remedial and liberally construed in favor of defendants)
Stephens v. State, 735 N.E.2d 278 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (treatment of credit when multiple charges pending)
Cohen v. State, 560 N.E.2d 1246 (Ind. 1990) (defendant failed to prove out-of-state confinement related to Indiana sentence)
Richeson v. State, 648 N.E.2d 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (defendant failed to prove county-to-county confinement was related to sentence)