Jamal Rasheed Southern v. State of Indiana ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be
    regarded as precedent or cited before                             FILED
    Apr 23 2012, 9:37 am
    any court except for the purpose of
    establishing the defense of res judicata,
    collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.                           CLERK
    of the supreme court,
    court of appeals and
    tax court
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:                             ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
    KRISTIN A. MULHOLLAND                               GREGORY F. ZOELLER
    Office of the Public Defender, Appellate Div.       Attorney General of Indiana
    Crown Point, Indiana
    BRIAN REITZ
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    JAMAAL RASHEED SOUTHERN,                            )
    )
    Appellant-Defendant,                         )
    )
    vs.                                  )      No. 45A03-1107-CR-298
    )
    STATE OF INDIANA,                                   )
    )
    Appellee-Plaintiff.                          )
    APPEAL FROM THE LAKE SUPERIOR COURT
    The Honorable Raymond D. Kickbush, Sr. Judge
    Cause Nos. 45G03-1001-FB-8, 45G03-1002-FB-12, 45G03-1003-FB-14,
    45G03-1003-FB-15, 45G03-1004-FB-43, 45G03-1006-FB-64
    April 23, 2012
    MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    MAY, Judge
    Jamaal Southern appeals the denial of his request for credit time. We affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    In 2010, the State charged Southern with ten counts of Class B felony burglary1 and
    one count each of Class C felony burglary,2 Class D felony residential entry,3 and Class D
    felony theft.4 Southern was incarcerated in Michigan when the charges were filed. On May
    17, he was transported from Michigan to Indiana under an Interstate Agreement on Detainers
    (IAD) to stand trial for those thirteen charges.
    On May 5, 2011, Southern agreed to plead guilty to six counts of Class B felony
    burglary and one count of Class C felony burglary. In exchange, the State dismissed the
    other charges against him. The agreements provided Southern would be sentenced to twenty
    years for each count of Class B felony burglary and to eight years for Class C felony
    burglary, and to be served concurrently for an aggregate sentence of twenty years.
    The trial court sentenced Southern according to the terms of his plea agreement and
    ordered him to serve his Indiana sentence consecutive to his Michigan sentence. During the
    sentencing hearing, Southern requested credit on his Indiana sentence for the 389 days he
    served in Indiana awaiting sentencing. The court denied his request because “he is going to
    be given credit toward his Michigan Department of Correction sentence there and is not
    entitled to the double credit[.]” (Sentencing Tr. at 25.)
    1
    Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1(1).
    2
    Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.
    3
    Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.5.
    4
    Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a).
    2
    DISCUSSION AND DECISION
    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. If a defendant is serving concurrent terms for separate crimes, he is entitled to
    credit time against each term. 
    Id. However, if
    the defendant is sentenced to consecutive
    terms for his crimes, he is allowed credit time only against the aggregate of the terms. 
    Id. A defendant
    may not claim “double or extra credit”5 for pre-sentencing confinement. 
    Id. The trial
    court ordered Southern’s Indiana sentence to run consecutive to his Michigan
    sentence. He received a 389 day credit against his Michigan sentence for the time he spent
    awaiting trial and sentencing for the Indiana charges. As Southern received credit against his
    Michigan sentence, any additional credit would result in impermissible double credit. See
    
    Payne, 838 N.E.2d at 510
    (Payne not entitled to credit against sentences to be served
    consecutively). Accordingly, we affirm.
    Affirmed.
    CRONE, J., and BROWN, J., concur.
    5
    In Payne, we indicated “double” or “extra” credit occurs when a defendant is given credit twice for the same
    period of pre-sentencing confinement. 
    Payne, 838 N.E.2d at 510
    .
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 45A03-1107-CR-298

Filed Date: 4/23/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021