Summary
In Crane v. State, 147 N.E.3d 424 (Ind.Ct.App. 2020), this Court faced a nearly identical challenge involving the same Marion County courts' sentencing template.
Summary of this case from Goff v. StateOpinion
Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-2292
06-18-2020
Harley R. CRANE, Jr., Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
Attorney for Appellant: Suzy St. John, Marion County Public Defender, Indianapolis, Indiana Attorneys for Appellee: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Tyler G. Banks, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
Attorney for Appellant: Suzy St. John, Marion County Public Defender, Indianapolis, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Tyler G. Banks, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
Robb, Judge.
[1] Harley Crane was tried by a jury on Count I, invasion of privacy, a Class A misdemeanor, and Count II, possession of marijuana, a Class B misdemeanor. The jury found him not guilty of Count I and guilty of Count II. See Transcript, Volume II at 185. The trial court indicated it would enter judgment on the jury's verdict on Count II and set the case for sentencing. See id. at 186. The trial court subsequently sentenced him to 180 days, with credit for twelve actual days served and the remaining 156 days suspended, and ordered ninety days of probation. The sentencing order states as follows:
The Defendant was charged with the following crimes, resulting in the following Dispositions under the above-referenced cause:
PART I CHARGES COUNT CRIME GOC STATUTORY CITATION DISPOSITION II 35-48-4-11(a)MB: Possession of Marjiuana 35-48-4-11(a)(1) Finding of Guilty
As a result of the above convictions, the Court has sentenced the defendant as follows:
PART II SENTENCE COUNT SENTENCE SUSPENDED CONCURRENT CONSECUTIVE WITH(COUNT OR CASE NUMBER) II 0 Year(s) and 180 Day(s) 0 Year(s) and 156 Day(s) COUNT CONFINEMENT TYPE CONFINEMENT COMMENTS II County Jail TIME SERVED
Appealed Order at 1.
[2] Crane appeals, raising the sole issue of whether the case should be remanded to the trial court to amend its sentencing order to also reflect the disposition of Count I. Crane asserts the accuracy of a sentencing order is important as a practical matter because sentencing orders "are used by the Indiana State Police to create criminal cross matches [that] play a role in establishing pretrial release terms and sentences." Brief of Appellant at 6-7. The State agrees the case should be remanded to reflect the not guilty verdict on Count I. See Brief of Appellee at 5.
[3] The sentencing order purports to show the crimes the defendant was charged with and the resulting dispositions. See Appealed Order at 1. And yet this sentencing order does not include any information about Count I. The better practice is for sentencing orders to be complete and accurate with respect to the charges that were tried and the disposition of each, not just the charges that were reduced to a conviction. We therefore remand the case to the trial court to amend its sentencing order to reflect that Crane was also tried on Count I and found not guilty. See Stott v. State , 822 N.E.2d 176, 178 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (remanding to correct a sentencing order that did not accurately reflect the oral disposition of all charges), trans. denied .
[4] Remanded.
May, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.