975 N.E.2d 846
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Koontz pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors under a plea agreement that set specific jail, probation, and concurrent terms.
- The plea required 365 days in jail with 18 executed and 365 days probation for one misdemeanor, and 60 days with 18 executed and 365 days probation for the other, run concurrently.
- The court accepted the plea and sentenced Koontz in accordance with the agreement on April 4, 2011.
- Koontz later moved to correct an allegedly face-erroneous sentence alleging the combined imprisonment plus probation exceeded one year as allowed for misdemeanors.
- The trial court denied the motion; Koontz then appealed arguing the sentence violated statutory limits not waivable by plea.
- The court held Koontz waived the error by consenting to the sentence in the plea agreement and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Koontz's sentence on its face exceeds statutory limits. | Koontz argues the combined term exceeds one year and is erroneous. | State contends Koontz waived any error by accepting the plea and sentence. | Waived; sentence affirmed as part of valid plea. |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. State, 509 N.E.2d 827 (Ind.1987) (plea for an illegal sentence bars later challenge)
- Davis v. State, 771 N.E.2d 647 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (benefit from plea affects ability to challenge sentence)
- Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35 (Ind.2004) (cannot challenge illegal consecutive sentences from plea)
- Allen v. State, 865 N.E.2d 686 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (plea agreements binding on court decisions)
- Davis v. State, 937 N.E.2d 8 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (erroneous-sentence procedure available for face-level errors)
- Neff v. State, 888 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind.2008) (erroneous-on-face standard for sentence correction)
- Stites v. State, 829 N.E.2d 527 (Ind.2005) (significant-benefit concept in plea sentencing context)