Jacob Maciaszek v. State of Indiana , 2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 154 ( 2017 )

FILED
Apr 10 2017, 9:18 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jacob L. Maciaszek Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Greencastle, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Christina D. Pace
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jacob Lee Maciaszek, April 10, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
43A03-1512-CR-2355
v. Appeal from the Kosciusko
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable David C. Cates,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
43D01-1205-FB-319
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 43A03-1512-CR-2355 | April 10, 2017 Page 1 of 12
[1] Jacob Lee Maciaszek appeals the trial court’s denial of his request for
presentence credit time. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On May 22, 2012, the State charged Maciaszek with two counts of Class B
felony burglary 1 and two counts of Class D felony theft. 2 The next day, the
State placed a hold on Maciaszek in Collier County, Florida, where he was
serving a sentence on an unrelated conviction with a release date of August 1,
2012. When Indiana placed that hold, Maciaszek was already subject to holds
placed by New Hampshire and Maine, 3 where he also was alleged to have
committed crimes.
[3] After completing his sentence in Florida, Maciaszek was transported to New
Hampshire, where he was found guilty and given a sentence of one-and-a-half
to six years, with a parole eligibility date of February 27, 2014. On January 10,
2013, while incarcerated in New Hampshire, Maciaszek filed a Request for
Disposition of his pending Indiana charges under the Interstate Agreement on
Detainers (“IAD”), which provides a mechanism for the “attendance of
1
Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1(1) (1999).
2
Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(1) (2009).
3
The record does not indicate the resolution of the charges in Maine.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 43A03-1512-CR-2355 | April 10, 2017 Page 2 of 12
defendants confined as prisoners in institutions of other jurisdictions of the
United States” in an Indiana court. Ind. Code § 35-33-10-4 (1981).
[4] Based on his request, Indiana authorities took custody of Maciaszek on March
19, 2013, and transported him to Indiana. On August 6, 2013, he pled guilty to
two counts of Class B felony burglary and was sentenced to sixteen years with
no credit for time served prior to sentencing (“Indiana Sentence”). The trial
court ordered Maciaszek “shall be immediately returned to the New Hampshire
State Prison, Northern Correctional Facility, Berlin, New Hampshire. Upon
completion of the New Hampshire sentence, authorities of the State of Indiana
shall be notified and custody of Jacob Maciaszek returned to the State of
Indiana.” (App. at 9/1. 4)
[5] On November 5, 2015, Maciaszek filed, pro se, a “Verified Petition for
Presentence Jail Time Credit and Earned Credit Time,” (id. at 13), arguing he
should have been given credit on his Indiana Sentence from May 23, 2012,
when Indiana put a hold on him in Florida, until his sentencing in Indiana on
August 6, 2013. The trial court did not hold a hearing, and on December 4,
2015, the trial court denied Maciaszek’s petition.
Discussion and Decision
4
“9/1” is the page number as it appears in Maciaszek’s Appendix.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 43A03-1512-CR-2355 | April 10, 2017 Page 3 of 12
[6] We first note Maciaszek proceeded at the trial court level and proceeds in this
appeal pro se. A litigant who proceeds pro se is held to the same established rules
of procedure that trained counsel is bound to follow. Smith v. Donahue, 907
N.E.2d 553, 555 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied, cert. dismissed. One risk a
litigant takes when he proceeds pro se is that he will not know how to
accomplish all the things an attorney would know how to accomplish. Id.When a party elects to represent himself, there is no reason for us to indulge in
any benevolent presumption on his behalf or to waive any rule for the orderly
and proper conduct of his appeal. Foley v. Mannor, 844 N.E.2d 494, 502 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2006).
[7] Indiana Code Section 35-50-6-3 (2015) provides, regarding good credit time for
a person convicted of a crime that occurred prior to July 1, 2014:
(b) A person assigned to Class I earns one (1) day of good time
credit for each day the person is imprisoned for a crime or
confined awaiting trial or sentencing.
(c) A person assigned to Class II earns one (1) day of good time
credit for every two (2) days the person is imprisoned for a crime
or confined awaiting trial or sentencing.
(d) A person assigned to Class III earns no good time credit.
(e) A person assigned to Class IV earns one (1) day of good time
credit for every six (6) days the person is imprisoned for a crime
or confined awaiting trial or sentencing.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 43A03-1512-CR-2355 | April 10, 2017 Page 4 of 12
[8] As our Indiana Supreme Court has noted, when a defendant challenges the
validity of the pre-sentence credit time he received, there are two types of credit
that must be calculated: “(1) the credit toward the sentence a prisoner receives
for time actually served, and (2) the additional credit a prisoner receives for
good behavior and educational attainment.” Purcell v. State, 721 N.E.2d 220,
222 (Ind. 1999). We will refer herein to these two distinct types of credit as
“credit for actual time served” and “good time credit.”
[9] To determine whether a prisoner is entitled to pre-trial credit for actual time
served, we must determine whether the defendant was confined before trial and
whether that confinement was the “result of the criminal charge for which [the]
sentence is being imposed.” Stephens v. State, 735 N.E.2d 278, 284 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2000), trans. denied. See Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3 (requiring defendant be
“confined awaiting trial or sentencing”). Thus, for example,
[i]f a person incarcerated awaiting trial on more than one charge
is sentenced to concurrent terms for the separate crimes, he or
she is entitled to receive credit time applied against each separate
term. However, if the defendant receives consecutive terms, he
or she is only allowed credit time against the total or aggregate of
the terms.
Payne v. State, 838 N.E.2d 503, 510 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.
[10] Once we have determined whether a prisoner was entitled to credit for actual
time served and, if so, how many days were earned, then we may turn to
Indiana Code Section 35-50-6-3 to determine how many days of good time
credit were also earned. Good time credit under that statute is a “matter of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 43A03-1512-CR-2355 | April 10, 2017 Page 5 of 12
statutory right, not a matter of judicial discretion.” Weaver v. State, 725 N.E.2d
945, 948 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). The trial court simply calculates how many
good time credit days the defendant earned based on the number of days of
actual time served and the defendant’s “Class,” as defined in Indiana Code
Section 35-50-6-4.
Here, Maciaszek asserts error in the calculation of presentence credit time. At
issue are two different periods of time: (1) when he was incarcerated in foreign
jurisdictions from May 23, 2012, to March 18, 2013, and (2) when he was
incarcerated in Indiana awaiting trial and sentencing from March 19, 2013, to
August 6, 2013. Within each of those periods of time, we will examine
Maciaszek’s requests for “credit time” in terms of “credit for actual time
served” and “good credit time.”
I. Presentence Credit for Time Incarcerated in Foreign Jurisdictions
[11] Maciaszek was in jail for an unrelated charge in Florida at the time Indiana put
a hold on him for the crimes alleged in Indiana. The Indiana hold was
subsequent to holds placed by New Hampshire and Maine for crimes he
allegedly committed in those states. After Florida released Maciaszek, he was
transported to New Hampshire, where he was found guilty of the charged
crimes and sentenced to one-and-a-half to six years incarcerated.
[12] Maciaszek argues he should receive credit for actual time served and good time
credit on his Indiana Sentence for the time he spent incarcerated in Florida and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 43A03-1512-CR-2355 | April 10, 2017 Page 6 of 12
New Hampshire prior to his Indiana Sentence. Maciaszek relies on a portion of
Dolan v. State, 420 N.E.2d 1364 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981), in which we stated:
Where a defendant is confined during the same time period for
multiple offenses and the offenses are tried separately, the
defendant is entitled to a “full credit” for each offense for which
he is sentenced. Each “full credit” is determined by the number
of days the defendant spent in confinement for the offense for
which the defendant is sentenced up to the date of sentencing for
that offense. Ordinarily, the presentence time served credit
whether the defendant is held on one or multiple offenses is
determined by the same method. The credit will be the number
of days the defendant spent in confinement from the date of
arrest for the offense to the date of sentencing for that same
offense.
Id. at 1373. However, Maciaszek ignores the other language in Dolan:
Although IC 35-50-6-3 states a defendant is allowed credit for
time “confined awaiting trial or sentencing,” we conclude the
Legislature clearly intended the credit to apply only to the
sentence for the offense for which the presentence time was
served. Any other result would allow credit time for time served
on wholly unrelated offenses. Under the criminal justice system,
once convicted, the defendant must serve the sentence imposed
for the offense committed. Credit time allowed by legislative
grace toward a specific sentence clearly must be for time served
for the offense for which that specific sentence was imposed.
Id. Our court concluded Dolan was not entitled to presentence credit time on
his sentence in one county for time spent in jail on an unrelated charge in
another county.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 43A03-1512-CR-2355 | April 10, 2017 Page 7 of 12
[13] We recently applied Dolan to a case involving credit for actual time served in
Purdue v. State, 51 N.E.3d 432 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). In Purdue, the trial court
denied Purdue credit for actual time served awaiting trial for Level 6 felony
theft because he was also serving time on two offenses that were dismissed as
part of his plea agreement. Our court reasoned those two offenses, though not
committed at the same time, were not “wholly unrelated” under Dolan, 420
N.E.2d at 1373, as to deny Purdue presentence credit for actual time served for
the theft charge because “the three cause numbers, and the underlying charges
of each, were considered together during the give and take process of plea
negotiations.” Purdue, 51 N.E.3d at 438.
[14] The same is not true here, where the charges Maciaszek faced in Indiana were
not related to those with which he had been convicted in Florida and New
Hampshire. Further, Purdue distinguished its holding from situations like
Maciaszek’s in noting Purdue “did not ask the trial court to grant accrued time
for confinement spent in another state or another county.” Id. at 438. We thus
hold the trial court did not err when it refused Maciaszek’s request for credit
time 5 for the days he served in Florida and New Hampshire on unrelated
charges from May 23, 2012, to March 18, 2013.
II. Presentence Credit Time for Time Spent in Indiana Awaiting Trial
5
As Maciaszek is not entitled to credit for actual time served against his Indiana Sentence, he is also not
entitled to good time credit, which allows for extra days of credit based on the credit class of the offender and
the actual days the offender served. See Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3 (good credit time statute).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 43A03-1512-CR-2355 | April 10, 2017 Page 8 of 12
[15] Maciaszek also contends he is entitled to presentence credit time from March
19, 2013, to August 6, 2013. Those are the days he spent in Indiana,
specifically at the Kosciusko County Jail, after he was extradited from New
Hampshire to stand trial for the charges against him in Indiana.
A. Credit for Actual Time Served
[16] Maciaszek’s facts closely parallel those in Ramirez v. State, 455 N.E.2d 609 (Ind.
Ct. App. 1983), cert. granted sub nom. Ramirez v. Indiana, 469 U.S. 929 (1984),
judgment summarily affirmed without opinion sub nom. Ramirez v. Indiana, 471 U.S.
147 (1985), reh’g denied. Ramirez was incarcerated in Michigan when he was
transported to Indiana to stand trial for charges filed against him in Indiana.
He was convicted of the Indiana charges and sentenced accordingly. Ramirez
then petitioned the trial court for credit time against his Indiana sentence for the
time he was incarcerated in Michigan prior to his sentence as well as the time
he was in jail in Indiana awaiting trial. The trial court denied Ramirez’s
request, and he appealed.
[17] Like in Dolan, the court held Ramirez was not entitled to presentence credit for
the days he served in Michigan on a Michigan conviction. Id. at 617.
However, the court held Ramirez was entitled to credit time for the days he
spent in jail in Indiana awaiting trial on Indiana charges. Id. The court stated:
The State argues because Ramirez apparently received credit
against his Michigan sentence for the days he was in the Howard
County Jail awaiting trial and sentencing on the Indiana drug
charges, he is not entitled to also receive credit time for those
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 43A03-1512-CR-2355 | April 10, 2017 Page 9 of 12
days in Indiana. The State is incorrect. There is no indication
the sentences in [the Indiana drug convictions] were to run
consecutively to the Michigan sentence. Because the Michigan
and Indiana sentences must therefore be assumed to be
concurrent, it would appear Ramirez was entitled to have the 322
days [he spent in the Howard County Jail awaiting trial and
sentencing on the Indiana drug charges] credited to both his
Michigan sentence and to the aggregate of the two Indiana
sentences.
Id. (citations and footnote omitted).
[18] The same is true here. In its “Amended Judgment of Conviction and Order of
Commitment” the trial court stated: “[Maciaszek] shall be immediately
returned to the New Hampshire State Prison, Northern Correctional Facility,
Berlin, New Hampshire. Upon completion of the New Hampshire sentence,
authorities of the State of Indiana shall be notified and custody of Jacob
Maciaszek returned to the State of Indiana.” (App. at 9/1.) That language
does not indicate Maciaszek’s Indiana Sentence was to be served consecutive to
his sentence in New Hampshire. Nor was there language in Maciaszek’s plea
agreement to indicate his Indiana Sentence was to be served consecutive to his
New Hampshire sentence. Thus, as in Ramirez, we must conclude the Indiana
and New Hampshire sentences were to be served concurrently. We also must
conclude, as in Ramirez and Dolan that Maciaszek is entitled to credit for actual
time served in the Kosciusko County Jail awaiting trial on the Indiana charges.
See Dolan, 420 N.E.2d at 1374 (absence of court order or statute to indicate
sentences in two jurisdictions are to be served consecutively leads to the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 43A03-1512-CR-2355 | April 10, 2017 Page 10 of 12
conclusion the sentences are to be served concurrently; therefore, Dolan was
entitled to presentence credit time for time spent in jail awaiting trial while still
receiving credit against his sentence in a different jurisdiction).
[19] Maciaszek was in the Kosciusko County Jail from March 19, 2013, until
August 6, 2013, and the trial court erred by not giving Maciaszek credit for
actual time served for those 141 days.
B. Good Time Credit
[20] Because Maciaszek is entitled to credit for actual time served against the
Indiana Sentence for the days he spent in Indiana awaiting trial on the Indiana
charges, the trial court also should have determined whether Maciaszek was
assigned to a credit class, as defined in Indiana Code Section 35-50-6-4 (2008),
that allows him to also receive good time credit for those days. See Ind. Code §
35-50-6-3. We are unable to determine whether Maciaszek is to receive good
time credit because the record before us does not indicate Maciaszek’s credit
class. We therefore remand for the trial court to determine Maciaszek’s credit
class under Indiana Code Section 35-50-6-4 and to assign him the number of
good time credit days to which he is entitled under Indiana Code Section 35-50-
6-3. 6 See Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 792 (Ind. 2004) (“a trial court’s
6
In his initial brief, Maciaszek argued he is also entitled to post-sentence credit for the time he spent in
Indiana after sentencing awaiting extradition to New Hampshire. In his reply brief, he acknowledged the
waiver of that argument based on the fact he presented the issue for the first time on appeal, and he withdrew
that issue from our consideration.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 43A03-1512-CR-2355 | April 10, 2017 Page 11 of 12
sentencing judgment must include both days imprisoned before sentencing and
the credit time earned thereby, thus reflecting any credit time deprivation
imposed before sentencing”).
Conclusion
[21] The trial could did not err when it denied Maciaszek’s request for presentence
credit for actual time served or for good time credit based on the time he spent
incarcerated in Florida and New Hampshire prior to his extradition to Indiana.
However, the trial court should have granted Maciaszek’s request for
presentence credit for actual time served and good time credit for the time he
spent in Indiana awaiting trial on the Indiana charges. Accordingly, we affirm
in part, reverse in part, and remand for amendment of Maciaszek’s sentencing
order to reflect a proper calculation of credit time.
[22] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Najam, J., and Bailey, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 43A03-1512-CR-2355 | April 10, 2017 Page 12 of 12