Preview:

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. APPELLANT PRO SE: CHARLES YOUNG Bunker Hill, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana RICHARD C. WEBSTER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
CHARLES YOUNG, Appellant-Petitioner, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 27A02-0703-PC-263

APPEAL FROM THE GRANT CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Robert L. Barnet, Special Judge Cause No. 27C01-9205-CF-35

October 30, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION DARDEN, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Charles Young ("Young") appeals from the trial court's denial of his pro se motion to correct erroneous sentence. We affirm. ISSUE Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Young's motion requesting two hundred and four (204) days of earned good time credit. FACTS On November 13, 1992, Young was found guilty, after a jury trial, of conspiracy to deal crack cocaine, as a class A felony. On December 4, 1992, the trial court imposed a forty-year sentence. In its sentencing order, the trial court stated, " . . . [Young] is entitled to 204 days CREDIT TIME for time spent incarcerated awaiting sentence, and further, should be given credit for good time conduct for time spent in confinement." (Young's App. 20). After filing both a direct appeal and a petition for post-conviction relief, Young filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence on January 18, 2007, wherein he alleged that he was entitled to an additional 204 days of good time credit. The trial court summarily denied Young's motion on January 31, 2007. DECISION Young contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to correct erroneous sentence. Specifically, he argues that although the trial court awarded him 204 days of credit for time spent incarcerated while awaiting sentence, it failed to specifically designate that he was also entitled to 204 days of good time credit. In response, the State 2

cites our supreme court's holding in Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 792 (Ind. 2004), for the proposition that sentencing judgments that report only days spent in pre-sentence confinement and fail to expressly designate credit time earned shall be understood by courts and by the [Department of Correction] automatically to award the number of credit time days equal to the number of presentence confinement days. . . . Because the omission of designation of the statutory credit time entitlement is thus corrected by this presumption, such omission may not be raised as an erroneous sentence. 805 N.E.2d at 792. Based upon the foregoing presumption, the sentencing judgment establishes that Young is entitled to 204 days credit for actual time spent in pre-trial confinement and an additional 204 days of good time credit. Therefore, the trial court did not err when it denied Young's motion to correct erroneous sentence. Affirmed. MAY, J., and CRONE, J., concur.

3



Download Charles Young v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law