State of Indiana v. Codee Lamaster (mem. dec.)
84 N.E.3d 630
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Lamaster pled guilty (Jan 19, 2016) to two counts of Class C felony forgery under a fixed plea agreement calling for concurrent 6-year sentences with 2 years suspended and 4 years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC); the plea bound the court to its terms if accepted.
- The plea agreement expressly allowed the court to recommend Lamaster for the Purposeful Incarceration Program and stated that if Lamaster successfully completed the program without conduct violations, the State would not object to a petition to modify the executed sentence (including reduced placement or conversion to suspended time); successful completion could even allow reduction to a Class A misdemeanor (conversion) after successful probation.
- Court accepted the plea and recommended expedited placement in the program (Jan 25, 2016).
- Lamaster was warned in October 2016, then terminated from the program on Dec. 21, 2016 after testing positive for methamphetamine; he admitted termination.
- Despite finding Lamaster did not successfully complete the program, the trial court granted Lamaster’s petition and modified his sentence to require serving the balance (590 days) in community corrections rather than the DOC, citing the defendant’s support system and invoking Indiana Code § 35-38-1-17(e).
- The State appealed, arguing the sentence modification violated the fixed plea agreement and was not authorized by statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could modify Lamaster’s executed sentence after he was terminated from the Purposeful Incarceration Program | The State: modification violated the terms of the binding plea agreement and thus was impermissible | Lamaster: court may modify the place of service (to community corrections) and § 35-38-1-17(e) authorizes reduction/suspension after obtaining DOC report | Court: modification violated the plea agreement (Lamaster did not meet the program condition); § 35-38-1-17(e) does not authorize the court to impose a sentence different from the one it was authorized to impose at sentencing under the plea; reversal and remand to deny petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Pannarale v. State, 638 N.E.2d 1247 (Ind. 1994) (a plea agreement is contractual and binding on the court once accepted)
- Gardiner v. State, 928 N.E.2d 194 (Ind. 2010) (sentence modification reviewed for abuse of discretion; statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Moore v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1241 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (in sentence-modification context, the petition filing date controls which statute applies)
- Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547 (Ind. 1999) (placement on probation or community corrections is a matter of grace, not a right)