Terry Chanley v. State of Indiana ( 2012 )

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before
any court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
TERRY CHANLEY GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Bunker Hill, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
GEORGE P. SHERMAN
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
FILED
Aug 27 2012, 9:47 am
IN THE
CLERK
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
TERRY CHANLEY, )
)
Appellant-Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) No. 87A01-1201-CR-42
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Respondent. )
APPEAL FROM THE WARRICK CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Jeffrey L. Biesterveld, Special Judge
Cause Nos. 87C01-0103-CF-29, 87C01-0103-CF-30, 87C01-0103-CF-31
August 27, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY, Judge
Terry Chanley appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for jail time credit. We
affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 12, 1987, Chanley escaped from the Blackburn Correctional Complex
in Lexington, Kentucky. On January 8, 1988, Chanley and two other men were apprehended
by an Indiana State Trooper, who found them by the side of the interstate in an intoxicated
state. During the incident, Chanley stole the Trooper’s police vehicle and struck the Trooper
with it as he fled. Chanley later also stole a truck.
The trial court found Chanley guilty of escape, theft, and robbery. The trial court also
found Chanley to be an habitual offender and sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of sixty
years incarcerated, to be served consecutive to his sentence in Kentucky. Chanley was
incarcerated in the Warrick County Jail prior to his trial and sentencing.
Chanley appealed his convictions and sentence, and our Indiana Supreme Court
affirmed. Chanley v. State, 583 N.E.2d 126, 132 (Ind. 1991). Chanley then petitioned for
post-conviction relief, and the post-conviction court granted his request to vacate the trial
court’s habitual offender finding. The State appealed, and we reinstated the finding that
Chanley was an habitual offender. State v. Chanley, 87A01-0212-CR-478 (Ind. Ct. App.
June 26, 2003), reh’g denied, trans. denied.
On September 19, 2011, Chanley filed a petition for jail time credit, alleging he did
not receive credit for the time he spent in the Warrick County Jail before he was sentenced
for his Indiana offenses. On December 8, the trial court denied Chanley’s motion.
2
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Chanley argues the trial court erred when it denied his motion for jail time credit, and
requests, “May I please have credit for the days I was confined in the Warrick County Jail
applied to any one of my sentences in any jurisdiction, Pretty Please, with Sugar on Top!”
(Reply Br. of Appellant at 4.) Despite the polite phrasing of his argument, we are unable to
grant his request.
Indiana Code § 35-50-6-3(a) provides, “A person assigned to Class I earns one (1) day
of credit time for each day the person is imprisoned for a crime or confined awaiting trial or
sentencing.” The determination of a defendant’s credit time depends on the length of his
pretrial confinement and whether that confinement is a result of the criminal charge for
which sentence is being imposed. Payne v. State, 838 N.E.2d 503, 510 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005),
trans. denied. A defendant may use presentence confinement to obtain “double or extra
credit” by obtaining credit against two sentences for the same days of incarceration. Id.“[A]ny time a defendant whose liberty has been restricted through imprisonment or
confinement requests a trial court to reconsider its previous award of jail time credit, and the
defendant’s motion in this regard identifies a sufficient factual basis for his eligibility, the
court must address the merits of such motion.” Weaver v. State, 725 N.E.2d 945, 948 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2000) (emphasis added). However, “a trial court may summarily deny a motion for
pre-sentence jail time credit that provides no information or factual basis from which the
court can determine whether credit time is or may be due; one that makes only bald assertions
of error or entitlement to credit time[.]” Id. at 948 fn 7. Credit for pre-sentence jail time is a
3
“matter of statutory right, not a matter of judicial discretion[,]” id., and thus we determine if
the court erred in applying the law. Id. at 948.
In his designation of evidence before the trial court, Chanley provided documentation
suggesting he did not receive credit against his sentence in Indiana for the time he was in the
Warrick County Jail awaiting trial and sentencing. However, he did not provide any
information regarding time, if any, credited toward the sentence he needed to finish serving
in Kentucky before he began serving his Indiana sentence. Because Chanley did not
demonstrate whether or not he received credit in Kentucky for the time he spent in Indiana’s
jail awaiting trial, the trial court could not give him credit against his sentence in Indiana
without risking it was providing an impermissible “double” credit. See Payne, 838 N.E.2d at
510 (impermissible “double” credit occurs when a defendant is given credit twice for the
same period of pre-sentencing confinement). As Chanley did not provide all necessary
information, we cannot hold the trial court erred when it denied his motion for jail time
credit. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
NAJAM, J., and KIRSCH, J., concur.
4