Sean A. Landrum v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
34A04-1705-CR-1132
| Ind. Ct. App. | Sep 28, 2017Background
- In 2007 Landrum was charged with multiple counts of dealing cocaine; he pleaded guilty to one count and was sentenced in 2009 to 25 years (20 executed, 5 suspended to unsupervised probation) under a plea agreement.
- A 2012 post-conviction proceeding altered the conviction to a Class B felony and resentenced Landrum to 20 years (15 executed, 5 suspended to supervised probation), adding a requirement to complete the Howard County drug re-entry program.
- Landrum violated the re-entry program, was taken into custody, absconded in August 2015, and was arrested August 23, 2016, on both the revoked-sentence case (FA-457) and a related Level 6 narcotics case (F4-777); he later pleaded true to the revocation and guilty in F4-777.
- At sentencing in April 2017 the court imposed an executed term of the previously suspended 5-year sentence (1,825 days) in FA-457 and declined to award any jail credit for time “awaiting disposition,” and the court treated credit issues as impacted by concurrent/Illinois custody.
- Landrum appealed, arguing (1) the 2012 imposition of supervised probation (and the drug program condition) abused discretion because his original plea had provided for unsupervised probation, and (2) the court erred in declining to award certain jail/credit time (a claimed 74 days and 129 excess days).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Landrum) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2012 order imposing supervised probation (and drug-program condition) was an abuse given prior plea called for unsupervised probation | State: The 2012 sentencing order is final and not timely appealed by Landrum; forfeited | Landrum: 2012 change to supervised probation conflicts with the 2009 plea/sentence calling for unsupervised probation | Forfeited: Landrum waited ~5 years to appeal the 2012 order and did not seek belated appeal; appellate forfeiture applies, so issue not considered on merits |
| Whether Landrum was entitled to 74 days of jail credit between June 10, 2015 and August 23, 2016 | State: Record does not show he was continuously in DOC custody for that period; credit not demonstrated | Landrum: He was ordered into custody June 10 and therefore should receive at least 74 days credit before his later arrest | Waived: Appellant failed to provide a record sufficient to show actual time in custody; issue waived |
| Whether excess 129 days of credit (earned pre-sentence in F4-777) should apply to FA-457 | State: Credit allocation resolved at sentencing and defense counsel conceded application was precluded by Illinois custody | Landrum: Excess credit from F4-777 should have been applied to FA-457 per plea terms | Invited error / denied: Defense counsel expressly conceded the excess credit was unavailable; any error invited and cannot be raised on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillman v. State, 16 N.E.3d 445 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (sentencing order is a final judgment subject to 30‑day appeal period)
- McGuire v. State, 617 N.E.2d 548 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (appellant bears burden to present a record adequate to sustain claims)
- Thompson v. State, 761 N.E.2d 467 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (failure to present sufficient record evidence results in waiver)
- Jackson v. State, 496 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1986) (appellate review requires adequate record; issues may be deemed waived without it)
- Brattain v. State, 777 N.E.2d 774 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (defendant may waive claim to credit time by failing to provide sufficient information)
- Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946 (Ind. 2014) (invited-error doctrine bars a party from benefiting from an error it induced)
- Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904 (Ind. 2005) (explaining invited-error doctrine)