Preview:

FILED
Mar 29 2012, 9:35 am

FOR PUBLICATION
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: STEVEN KNECHT Vonderheide & Knecht, P.C. Lafayette, Indiana

of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana KARL M. SCHARNBERG Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
TODD J. CRIDER Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 91A05-1108-CR-389

APPEAL FROM THE WHITE SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Robert B. Mrzlack, Judge Cause No. 91D01-1012-FD-150

March 29, 2012

OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

FRIEDLANDER, Judge

Todd J. Crider pleaded guilty to theft as a class D felony and admitted to being a Habitual Offender. Pursuant to the terms of a written plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Crider to three years on the theft conviction and enhanced such sentence by three years based on his status as a habitual offender. The trial court ordered that the sentence imposed in this cause be served consecutively to a sentence imposed in a separate cause in Tippecanoe County for an underlying conviction and habitual offender finding. On appeal, Crider challenges his sentence, presenting the following issue for our review: Did the trial court erroneously order the sentence in the instant cause, which includes an enhancement for a habitual offender finding, be served consecutively to the sentence imposed in a separate cause in a different county that also included a habitual offender enhancement? We dismiss. On December 1, 2010, the State charged Crider with theft as a class D felony. On February 23, 2011, the State amended the charging information to include a habitual offender allegation. On May 31, 2011, the State and Crider submitted to the court a written plea agreement in which Crider agreed to plead guilty as charged and admit his status as a habitual offender. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Crider was to be sentenced to three years for the class D felony theft conviction and such sentence was to be enhanced by an additional three years for the habitual offender determination. The final sentence of the plea agreement as originally drafted provided "The sentence in Count II shall be served concurrent with an habitual offender enhancement received in Tippecanoe County." Appellant's Appendix at 9. This line is crossed out and is initialed by both Crider and his counsel. Further, the plea agreement originally called for a sentence of
2

one and one-half years to be enhanced by one and one-half years for the habitual offender determination. Each of these terms is likewise crossed out, replaced with three years, initialed by Crider, his counsel, and the prosecutor. The plea agreement also provided: 4. The Defendant waives his right to appeal any sentence imposed by the trial court that is within the range set forth in the plea agreement. Further, the Defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waives his right to challenge the sentence on the basis that it is erroneous. Id. At the guilty plea hearing, the trial court found that that a sufficient factual basis existed for Crider's plea and that Crider knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea. The court held a sentencing hearing on July 18, 2011. At the sentencing hearing, Crider filed a sentencing memorandum in which he challenged the legality of serving the sentence called for in the plea agreement consecutively to the sentence already imposed in Tippecanoe County in which he had also been subjected to a habitual offender enhancement. Crider argued to the court: Judge, I - - briefly touching on the memorandum, the defendant was sentenced in Tippecanoe County on a habitual offender charge I believe in May of this year. It's [Crider's] belief and opinion that the habitual offender charge in that case, as well as in this case, those enhancements should be run concurrent, even if the underlying sentences may be run consecutive and then consecutive to one another. Other than that, we believe the plea agreement to be appropriate and request that the Court accept the agreement as presented. Transcript at 26. Citing Ind. Code Ann.

Download Todd J. Crider v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law