William Epperly v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 34A02-1607-CR-1567

William Epperly pleaded guilty in 2014 to operating as a habitual traffic offender; received a 3-year sentence with most time suspended and 42 days credit for time already served.
Multiple petitions to revoke probation were filed in 2015–2016 after Epperly committed new offenses; he admitted violations and the court ordered portions of the suspended sentence executed at successive hearings.
In December 2015 the court executed 40 days of the suspended sentence and expressly credited 168 days for earlier jail time.
At the June 8, 2016 revocation hearing the court orally stated Epperly would serve about 329 actual days; the written June 8, 2016 sentencing order, however, listed credit for only 148 days and reflected a remaining balance of 947 actual days.
Epperly argued the written order omitted credit for jail time from March 11, 2016 to June 8, 2016; the State conceded a conflict between the oral pronouncement and written order and noted some pre-sentencing confinement might have been credited to other cases.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for clarification of the correct amount of presentence jail credit and whether credit for March 11–June 8, 2016 was already applied elsewhere.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred in calculating presentence jail credit after probation revocation	Epperly: written order understates credit; he should receive credit for Mar 11–Jun 8, 2016 reducing executed time to ~314 days	State: oral and written sentencing conflict; some jail days may have been credited in other pending cases, so credit allocation unclear	Court: Conflict between oral pronouncement and written order requires reversal and remand for clarification of credit and whether March–June days were applied to other cases

Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (standard of review for probation revocation sentencing)
Molden v. State, 750 N.E.2d 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (presentence jail credit is statutory right, not discretionary)
McElroy v. State, 865 N.E.2d 584 (Ind. 2007) (resolve conflicts between oral and written sentencing statements by examining both and remanding if necessary)
State v. Lotaki, 4 N.E.3d 656 (Ind. 2014) (when consecutive sentences, credit is deducted from aggregate total)
Purdue v. State, 51 N.E.3d 432 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (when sentences run concurrently, pretrial jail credit may apply to each term)