Ian P.Y. Foxworthy v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 10 2019, 8:49 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
John A. Kindley Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Angela N. Sanchez
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ian P.Y. Foxworthy, December 10, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1457
v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Michael R. Rader,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos.
84D05-1708-F6-2557
84D05-1808-F5-3019
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1457 | December 10, 2019 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] Ian P.Y. Foxworthy (“Foxworthy”) challenges the sanction imposed for failing
to report to Community Corrections. He contends—and the State agrees—the
trial court erred by imposing a sanction not authorized by a plea agreement.
[2] We reverse and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In June 2018, Foxworthy was sentenced in Cause No. 84D05-1708-F6-2557.
The sentence—provided for in a plea agreement—was for an aggregate sentence
of five years, with one year suspended and four years on home detention
supervised by Community Corrections. In July 2018, the State filed a petition
to revoke the placement on home detention, alleging Foxworthy failed to timely
report to Community Corrections. During the pendency of this petition, the
State filed a second petition to revoke and, in a separate cause, charged
Foxworthy with the criminal offense of Failure to Return to Lawful Detention.
[4] Foxworthy entered a second plea agreement with the State. Under the second
plea agreement, Foxworthy would plead guilty to the new offense, with that
new sentence open for argument. As to the initial cause, Foxworthy would
admit to a violation. Moreover, “placement on Defendant’s sentence of four
(4) years shall be argued to the Court.” App. Vol. II at 70 (emphasis added).
[5] The trial court held a hearing at which Foxworthy pleaded guilty and admitted
to a violation, pursuant to the second plea agreement. The trial court accepted
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1457 | December 10, 2019 Page 2 of 4
the plea and set the matter for sentencing. At an ensuing sentencing hearing,
the court heard argument and “revoke[d] the balance of 5 years to be served in
the Indiana Department of Correction.” Id. at 73 (emphasis added).
[6] Foxworthy now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[7] “Trial courts enjoy considerable discretion in deciding whether to accept or
reject a proposed plea agreement.” Rodriguez v. State, 129 N.E.3d 789, 794 (Ind.
2019). However, “[i]f the court accepts a plea agreement, it shall be bound by
its terms,” Ind. Code § 35-35-3-3(e)—i.e., a court “possesses only that degree of
sentencing discretion provided in the [accepted] agreement,” Rodriguez, 129
N.E.3d at 794 (quoting St. Clair v. State, 901 N.E.2d 490, 493 (Ind. 2009)).
[8] Here, the court accepted the plea made pursuant to the second plea agreement.
The court was therefore bound by the terms of the agreement. Those terms
allowed for discretion in “placement on Defendant’s sentence of four (4) years”
in the initial cause. App. Vol. II at 70. However, the agreement did not permit
a sanction concerning the fifth year. Thus, the trial court erred by imposing a
sanction not authorized by the plea agreement. To remedy this error, we could
reverse and remand for resentencing. See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 968 N.E.2d 328,
334 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). However, from its remarks at sentencing, it is
apparent that the court wished to impose the longest-possible executed sentence
upon the violation. Tr. at 23 (“But I mean it’s clear to me . . . there’s no point
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1457 | December 10, 2019 Page 3 of 4
in putting you . . . in Community Corrections. You’ll just, I mean your pattern
is you . . . don’t comply.”). We therefore take the action that both Foxworthy
and the State now request—that is, we reverse and remand with instructions to
reduce the executed portion of the sentence imposed in Cause No. 84D05-1708-
F6-2557 to four years, which is consistent with the terms of the second plea
agreement.
[9] Reversed and remanded.
Kirsch, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1457 | December 10, 2019 Page 4 of 4