Mitchell Swallows v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 380
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Mitchell Swallows was convicted in 1989 of multiple violent offenses and received an aggregate 100-year sentence.
- On October 1, 2014, Swallows filed a petition to reduce his sentence under Indiana Code § 35-38-1-17.
- The prosecutor objected to the petition; the trial court denied relief on November 5, 2014, concluding it lacked authority because Swallows began serving his sentence long before the 2014 amendment and the prosecutor did not approve.
- The 2014 amendment to § 35-38-1-17 (effective July 1, 2014) removed the prosecutor’s veto over sentence reductions that occur more than 365 days after service began.
- The legislature included a savings clause stating sections of the statutes enacted in P.L.158-2013 and P.L.168-2014 do not affect proceedings begun before July 1, 2014.
- Swallows appealed, arguing the revised (post–July 1, 2014) statute should govern his modification petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2014 amendment to Ind. Code § 35-38-1-17 applies to a sentence being served that was imposed before July 1, 2014 | Swallows: the revised statute (removing prosecutorial approval) applies to his pending modification petition | State: the savings clause preserves prior law for proceedings begun before July 1, 2014, so prosecutorial approval still required | The amended statute does not apply; trial court correctly denied modification absent prosecutor approval |
Key Cases Cited
- Hobbs v. State, 26 N.E.3d 983 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (held the 2014 criminal-code revisions did not apply to proceedings begun before July 1, 2014)
- Brunner v. State, 947 N.E.2d 411 (Ind. 2011) (statutory interpretation—matters of law reviewed de novo)
- City of Carmel v. Steele, 865 N.E.2d 612 (Ind. 2007) (when a statute is unambiguous, words are given their plain meaning; rules of construction apply if ambiguous)
- Marley v. State, 17 N.E.3d 335 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (General Assembly intended new criminal code not to affect criminal proceedings for pre-enactment offenses)
- Harris v. State, 897 N.E.2d 927 (Ind. 2008) (the sentencing statute in effect at the time the crime was committed governs the sentence)