Opinion
23A-CR-1142
10-27-2023
Matthew Tribble, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
Attorney for Appellant Chad A. Montgomery Lafayette, Indiana Attorneys for Appellee Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana J. T. Whitehead 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Tippecanoe Superior Court The Honorable Randy Williams, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 79D01-1904-F3-18 & 79D01-2206-F6-592
Attorney for Appellant Chad A. Montgomery Lafayette, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana J. T. Whitehead Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
RILEY, JUDGE
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[¶1] Appellant-Defendant, Matthew Tribble (Tribble), appeals his sentence for violating the terms of his work release placement.
[¶2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[¶3] Tribble presents this court with two issues, one of which we find to be dispositive and which we restate as: Whether he waived his right to bring this appeal.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[¶4] On February 4, 2020, Tribble pleaded guilty in Cause 79D01-1904-F3-18 (Cause -18) to Level 3 felony conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine. On March 13, 2020, the trial court conducted Tribble's sentencing hearing at which it found several aggravating factors, including the fact that Tribble had a history of substance abuse. The trial court sentenced Tribble in Cause -18 to ten years, with five years to be served in the Department of Correction (DOC), two years to be served with Tippecanoe County Community Corrections (TCCC), and three years suspended to supervised probation. On September 27, 2021, the trial court modified Tribble's ten-year sentence to four and one-half years executed in the DOC, two and one-half years with TCCC, and three years suspended to probation.
[¶5] On April 20, 2022, Tribble began serving his Cause -18 TCCC sentence on work release. On May 17, 2022, the State filed a petition to execute Tribble's TCCC placement, alleging that on May 13, 2022, Tribble had not returned to work release. On June 8, 2022, the State filed an Information, charging Tribble in Cause 79D01-2206-F6-592 (Cause -592) with Level 6 felony failure to return to lawful detention for his failure to return to work release on May 13, 2022. On February 17, 2023, Tribble executed a plea agreement to resolve the State's petition to execute in Cause -18 and to resolve the Cause -592 Level 6 felony charge. Tribble's plea agreement contained the following relevant provisions:
3. That prior to sentencing in this case, the parties agree that [Tribble] shall admit the Petition to [Execute Community Corrections Sentence] filed on or about May 17, 2022, in [Cause -18]. The parties agree that [Tribble] shall receive the sanction for this violation that this court deems appropriate after hearing any evidence or argument of counsel.
4. That [Tribble] understands that the sentence imposed by the [c]ourt may include an executed sentence to the [DOC], [TCCC], and/or suspended sentence on Probation. Further, [Tribble] understands that if he fails to qualify for or is rejected from [TCCC], he shall serve his remaining community corrections sentence in the [DOC]. [Tribble] hereby waives the right to appeal any sentence imposed by the [c]court, under any standard of review, including but not limited to, an abuse of discretion standard and the appropriateness of the sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), so long as the [c]ourt sentences [Tribble] within the terms of the plea agreement.
7. That the parties agree that the sentence for [Cause -592] shall run consecutively with the sentence in [Cause -18], as [Tribble] was [serving an executed sentence] when he committed the offenses charges in [Cause -592].(Appellant's App. Vol. II, p. 59).
[¶6] On February 17, 2023, Tribble admitted the allegations of the State's motion to execute in Cause -18 and pleaded guilty to the failure to return to lawful detention charge in Cause -592. On March 31, 2023, the trial court held a sentencing hearing at which it accepted Tribble's admissions, guilty plea, and plea agreement. Tribble's counsel argued that Tribble required dual diagnosis treatment for his mental health and substance abuse issues. Tribble had been accepted into a treatment program at Trinity. Regarding the Trinity treatment program, Tribble's counsel argued the following:
And I'm, that's not my area of expertise, so I can't say exactly what they're gonna do day to day. But we do know that there are residential program[s], uh, 12-month residential program. So, it's not an in today, out tomorrow. Um, if that is made a condition of probation, then he has to follow through on whatever they recommend for treatment. Um, whether they're gonna partner with a third party, whatever they recommend for the treatment of what he has, then he would be required to do that. Because what I'm trying to get to, your Honor, is that I'm trying to get to something that's actually gonna make a difference on the whole, um, rather than just say, let's just put him in custody. It doesn't matter if this ever, cuz at some point he's gonna get out. So, what I'm trying to do is trying to get to something that will actually fix this.(Transcript pp. 36-37).
[¶7] The trial court found mitigating and aggravating circumstances, including that Tribble had a history of substance abuse. The trial court sentenced Tribble to one year in the DOC in Cause -18, and it sentenced Tribble to one and one-half years in the DOC for failing to return to lawful detention in Cause -592. In its oral and written sentencing statements, as an added term of probation in Cause -18, the trial court ordered that upon Tribble's release from the DOC, he must participate in an in-patient program such as Trinity for substance abuse issues.
[¶8] Tribble now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[¶9] Tribble challenges the trial court's imposition of in-patient substance abuse treatment as an added condition of his probation. Tribble's plea agreement in Causes -18 and -529 contained a waiver of his right to appeal his sentence, which Tribble contends does not extend to this appeal of the sentence the trial court imposed for violating the terms of his work release in Cause -18. The State counters that the waiver contained in Tribble's plea agreement covered the sentences in both Causes.
[¶10] Determination of this issue calls upon us to construe the terms of Tribble's plea agreement. A defendant in a criminal proceeding may waive his right to appeal his sentence through a plea agreement. Fields v. State, 162 N.E.3d 571, 575 (Ind.Ct.App. 2021), trans. denied. In construing a plea agreement, we take guidance from contract interpretation principles, although we are not strictly bound by them. Berry v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1243, 1247 (Ind. 2014). We begin with the plain language of the plea agreement and read its provisions as a harmonious whole, if possible. Id.
[¶11] The waiver provision of Tribble's plea agreement provided that he waived his right to appeal "any sentence" imposed by the court. (Appellant's App. Vol. II, p. 58). Tribble offers one argument on appeal as to why this provision does not bar the instant appeal. According to Tribble, the waiver provision applies only to a "sentence", and because the parties refer in paragraph 3 of the plea agreement to the punishment he was to receive for his work release violation in Cause -18 as "the sanction" and not as "the sentence," the waiver provision does not apply to the challenged probation condition imposed as part of the Cause -18 disposition. (Appellant's App. Vol. II, p. 58).
[¶12] We do not find this argument to be persuasive. Tribble's plea agreement disposed of both Causes -18 and -529. Within paragraph 3 pertaining to the resolution of Cause -18, the parties refer to "sentencing in this case", and in paragraph 7 of the plea agreement, the parties refer to the disposition of Cause -18 as "the sentence" when agreeing that the sentences in both matters would run consecutively. Given the parties' other references to the resolution of Cause -18 as "sentencing" and "the sentence" and given our mandate to read the provisions of a plea agreement as a harmonious whole, see id., we conclude that the parties' reference to "the sanction" in paragraph 3 did not inject ambiguity into the plea agreement and was clearly used as a synonym for the sentence to be imposed in Cause -18. To conclude otherwise would be to determine the meaning of the waiver provision through an isolated reference to "the sanction", rather than reading all of the terms and provisions of the plea agreement together. See U.S. Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Erie Ins. Exchange, 204 N.E.3d 215, 223 (Ind. 2023) (reciting the principle that we review contracts in their entirety, not merely individual words, phrases, or paragraphs). As a result, we conclude that the waiver provision applies here.
[¶13] However, even if Tribble had not waived his right to appeal through the terms of his plea agreement, we would still not have reached the merits of his claim that the imposition of the added condition of probation violated the terms of his plea agreement. Invited error occurs when a party's failure to object is accompanied by that party's affirmative requests of the court, and invited error results in waiver. Batchelor v. State, 119 N.E.3d 550, 556 (Ind. 2019). Here, at sentencing, Tribble affirmatively argued to the trial court that he should be ordered into Trinity as a term of probation, a plea which was not limited to the condition that Tribble receive only probation for his work release violation. Therefore, Tribble cannot now be heard to complain that the trial court did as he requested. See Anderson v. State, 141 N.E.3d 862, 866 (Ind.Ct.App. 2020) (observing that "[a]n appellant will not be permitted to take advantage of errors which he himself committed, or invited or induced the trial court to commit"), trans. denied. Accordingly, we do not disturb the trial court's imposition of inpatient substance abuse treatment as a condition of Tribble's probation.
CONCLUSION
[¶14] Based on the foregoing, we hold that Tribble waived his right to bring this appeal through the terms of his plea agreement.
[¶15] Affirmed.
Crone, J. and Mathias, J. concur