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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JAMES A. SHOAF Columbus, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana JODI KATHRYN STEIN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
GEORGE E. WINGET, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 03A05-0706-CR-335

APPEAL FROM THE BARTHOLOMEW SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Chris D. Monroe, Judge Cause No. 03D01-0701-FD-59

December 26, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BAILEY, Judge

Case Summary George E. Winget appeals his sentence and the calculation of his credit time for Possession of Chemical Reagents or Precursors with Intent to Manufacture a Controlled Substance, as a Class D felony.1 We affirm. Issues Winget raises two issues on appeal, which we restate as follows: I. II. Whether his sentence is inappropriate; and Whether the trial court erred in calculating his credit time. Facts and Procedural History In 2003, Winget pled guilty to a Class C felony unrelated to the instant conviction. On August 31, 2006, he was paroled. On January 8, 2007, Winget was stopped for an automobile infraction and his vehicle was searched. Based upon items discovered in the vehicle, the State charged Winget with Possession of Methamphetamine and Possession of Chemical Reagents or Precursors with Intent to Manufacture a Controlled Substance, both as Class D felonies. Winget pled guilty to the latter charge, while the State dismissed the first. The trial court sentenced him to the maximum three-year term of imprisonment, to be fully executed and served consecutive to the 2003 conviction. Also, the trial court found that Winget had been in jail thirteen days and therefore ordered him to receive twenty-six days of credit time. He now appeals. 2

Discussion and Decision I. Independent Review of Sentence Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), this "Court may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender." See IND. CONST. art. VII,

Download George E. Winget v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law