Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

DANIEL M. GROVE STEVE CARTER Special Assistant to the Public Defender of Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana JUSTIN F. ROEBEL Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JUAN RIVERA, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 57A03-0506-CR-307

APPEAL FROM THE NOBLE CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable G. David Laur, Judge Cause No. 57C01-0410-FB-45

February 8, 2006 OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

BARNES, Judge

Case Summary Juan Rivera appeals his sentence for Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine. We affirm. Issues Rivera raises two issues, which we restate as: I. whether the trial court considered improper aggravators when determining his executed sentence after he pled guilty to a fixed term of ten years; and whether his sentence of six years executed is appropriate. Facts

II.

On October 18, 2004, Rivera was charged with Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine after he sold 970.8 grams of that drug to an undercover police officer. On April 15, 2005, Rivera pled guilty. The plea agreement called for a fixed term of ten years with the amount of time executed to be determined by the trial court at sentencing. The trial court sentenced Rivera to ten years with six years executed and four years suspended. At the hearing, the trial court stated: All right, Mr. Rivera I'm always, uh, troubled when young people with no prior record get involved with, uh, drugs, especially methamphetamine. Th-, this is a huge amount of methamphetamine. And I'm also troubled that while I usually see cases where people are manufacturing methamphetamine. . . here we are talking about, uh, about packages of , uh, methamphetamine. I've, I've considered the fact that, also considered the fact that you have no prior felony record. . . and that you plead [sic] guilty rather than go to trial. I think time in, uh, in prison is an important part of sending a message to others as well as drying you out to try to deal with any potential addiction issues you may have. I also believe that it's important to, uh, transition you back out so 2

that you have some treatment and some period of probation to try to, uh, make sure that you do not re-offend. So I will impose the presumptive ten year sentence. . . balance the huge amount of methamphetamine with the fact that you had no prior felonies and the guilty plea you entered. Tr. pp. 11-12 (translation omitted). The trial court's written sentencing order does not include any aggravating circumstances and points out Rivera's guilty plea and lack of prior felony convictions as mitigating circumstances. Rivera now appeals his sentence. Analysis I. Executed Sentence Rivera argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed the ten-year sentence. However, pursuant to the plea agreement, which the trial court accepted, Rivera agreed to a ten-year-sentence. "It is within the trial court's discretion to accept or reject a plea agreement and the sentencing provisions therein; however, if the court accepts such an agreement, it is strictly bound by its sentencing provision and is precluded from imposing any sentence other than required by the plea agreement." Bennett v. State, 802 N.E.2d 919, 921-22 (Ind. 2004). Thus, the trial court was not permitted to impose a sentence other than the ten-year sentence agreed to in the plea. See id. Rivera also appears to argue that the trial court had the authority to suspend more than just four years of his ten-year sentence and should have done so. See Ind. Code

Download Juan Rivera v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law