Opinion
24A-CR-748
10-29-2024
Kevin Chandler, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
APPELLANT PRO SE Kevin Chandler Michigan City, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Catherine Brizzi Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Angela Dow Davis, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G01-0703-FA-43831
APPELLANT PRO SE Kevin Chandler Michigan City, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Catherine Brizzi Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
BROWN, JUDGE.
[¶1] Kevin Chandler appeals the trial court's order denying his petition to modify his placement from the Department of Correction to home detention. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] In March 2007, the State charged Chandler with attempted murder as a class A felony, aggravated battery as a class B felony, battery as a class B felony, and battery as a class C felony under cause number 49A02-0709-CR-830. Chandler was on probation at the time of the offense. A jury found him guilty as charged. The trial court entered judgment of conviction for attempted murder only, and on August 24, 2007, the court sentenced Chandler to forty years in the Department of Correction. This Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. Chandler v. State, No. 49A02-0709-CR-830, 2008 WL 2042797, *3 (Ind.Ct.App. May 14, 2008), trans. denied.
[¶3] On March 15, 2024, Chandler filed a "Verified Petition for Home Detention" stating that he was sentenced on August 24, 2007, he was given 162 days of credit for jail time served prior to sentencing, he had served seventeen years of his sentence, and his projected release date was February 26, 2032. Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 3. That same day, the court denied Chandler's petition. Chandler filed a letter requesting the reason that his petition was denied, and the court stated: "Court reviews and denies modification. [Chandler] was on probation at the time of arrest, not enough time has elaspsed [sic]. Court is not placing [Chandler] on Community Corrections." Id. at 4.
Discussion
[¶4] Chandler asserts the trial court erred in denying his petition to modify his placement. Chandler is proceeding pro se and is held to the same standard as trained counsel. See Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004), trans. denied. To the extent he does not cite to the record or present cogent argument, his claims are waived. See Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831, 834 n.1 (Ind. 2006) (defendant's contention waived because it was not supported by cogent argument or citation to authority).
[¶5] We review a trial court's decision to modify a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gardiner v. State, 928 N.E.2d 194, 196 (Ind. 2010). Ind. Code § 35-38-1-17 provides: "Except as provided in subsections (k) and (m), this section does not apply to a violent criminal." Ind. Code § 35-38-1-17(c). Ind. Code § 35-38-1-17(d) defines a violent criminal as "a person convicted of . . . [attempted murder . . . ." Ind. Code § 35-38-1-17(k) provides that, "[e]xcept as provided in subsection (n), a convicted person who is a violent criminal may, not later than three hundred sixty-five (365) days from the date of sentencing, file one (1) petition for sentence modification under this section without the consent of the prosecuting attorney" and, "[a]fter the elapse of the three hundred sixty-five (365) day period, a violent criminal may not file a petition for sentence modification without the consent of the prosecuting attorney." Given that
Ind. Code § 35-38-1-17(n) relates to persons who committed an offense when they were less than eighteen years of age.
Chandler is a violent criminal, more than 365 days have elapsed since his sentencing, and the prosecuting attorney did not provide consent for the filing of his petition for sentence modification, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in denying his March 15, 2024 petition. See Newson v. State, 86 N.E.3d 173, 174-175 (Ind.Ct.App. 2017) (holding that, as a violent criminal, the defendant was not entitled to file a petition for sentence modification more than 365 days after his sentencing hearing without the consent of the prosecuting attorney and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for modification of sentence), trans. denied.
[¶6] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's order.
[¶7] Affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.