Background

• Puckett pled guilty to one count of Class C felony child molesting as part of a plea agreement that recommended an entirely suspended sentence to be determined by the trial court.
• The trial court ultimately imposed four years suspended to probation, consistent with the presentence report.
• Subsequently, the State filed multiple petitions alleging probation violations; by 2010, Puckett pled guilty in Grant County to Class D felony failure to register as a sex offender, with a two-year sentence (one and one-half years suspended, six months executed).
• In April 2011, a special judge conducted a probation-revocation hearing; the State agreed to dismiss other allegations and only the failure-to-register admission was litigated.
• The trial court revoked the entire suspended sentence and ordered four years of incarceration, basing its decision on comments about the plea and on dismissed allegations, as well as its personal views on the sex-offender registry.
• Puckett appealed, challenging the sentence as an abuse of discretion given improper factors; the Indiana Court of Appeals agreed the decision was error and remanded for a new revocation hearing.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Abernathy v. State, 852 N.E.2d 1016 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard in probation revocation)
• Nybo v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (plea-bargain sentencing limits post-plea)
• Farmer v. State, 772 N.E.2d 1025 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (prohibits using dismissed charges to aggravate sentence)
• Conwell v. State, 542 N.E.2d 1024 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (cannot rely on distinctions between greater and lesser offenses after plea)
• Hamman v. State, 504 N.E.2d 276 (Ind. 1987) (cannot punish for jury verdict in a way to compensate for perceived error)
• Scheckel v. State, 655 N.E.2d 506 (Ind. 1995) (trial court must base revocation on relevant facts; avoid personal views)