Todd J. Crider v. State of Indiana
984 N.E.2d 618
| Ind. | 2013Background
- Crider was charged with theft (class D felony) and alleged to be a habitual offender in White County, Indiana.
- Crider and the State executed a written plea agreement: plead guilty as charged, admit habitual offender status, with a 3-year DOC sentence plus 3 years for habitual offender.
- The plea initially drafted texts contemplated concurrent vs. separate sentencing with the Tippecanoe County habitual offender sentence; several lines were scratched and re-written.
- At sentencing, the court interpreted Indiana law to require the White County habitual offender enhancement to run consecutively to the Tippecanoe County sentence.
- Crider argued the consecutive habitual offender enhancements were illegal, citing case law; the trial court rejected this and imposed six years total.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed Crider’s appeal based on the appeal waiver in the plea agreement; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and reversed in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could order consecutive habitual offender sentences | Crider | State | Consecutive habitual offender sentences are not allowed |
| Whether Crider validly waived appellate review of his sentence | Crider | State | Waiver invalid where sentence unconstitutional; not part of the plea agreement |
| Effect of misapprehension of law on plea waivers | Crider | State | Crider's waiver cannot bar review of an illegal sentence |
| What governing rule applies when a defendant pleads to a sentence not contemplated by law | Crider | State | Default rule is legality; waiver applies only to legal sentences |
Key Cases Cited
- Starks v. State, 523 N.E.2d 735 (Ind. 1988) (consecutive habitual offender sentences improper absent express authorization)
- Breaston v. State, 907 N.E.2d 992 (Ind. 2009) (cannot order consecutive habitual offender sentences)
- Creech v. State, 887 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. 2008) (waiver not defeated by court oral advisement; benefit of bargain intact)
- Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35 (Ind. 2004) (defendant may waive right to appeal; cannot uphold illegal sentence)
- Collins v. State, 509 N.E.2d 827 (Ind. 1987) (waiver upheld where sentence provided by plea; illegality specific)
- Sinn v. State, 609 N.E.2d 434 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (consecutive sentences not authorized by statute in absence of waiver clarity)
- Bonilla v. State, 907 N.E.2d 586 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (contradictory plea hearing advice can negate waiver)
- Ricci v. State, 894 N.E.2d 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (where plea preserves right to appeal due to court statements, waiver may be null)