Harley R. Crane, Jr. v. State of Indiana ( 2020 )

FILED
Jun 18 2020, 7:18 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Suzy St. John Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana Tyler G. Banks
Supervising Deputy
Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Harley R. Crane, Jr., June 18, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-2292
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Angela Davis,
Appellee-Plaintiff, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G16-1905-F6-21384
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2292 | June 18, 2020 Page 1 of 3
[1] Harley Crane was tried by a jury on Count I, invasion of privacy, a Class A
misdemeanor, and Count II, possession of marijuana, a Class B misdemeanor.
The jury found him not guilty of Count I and guilty of Count II. See Transcript,
Volume II at 185. The trial court indicated it would enter judgment on the
jury’s verdict on Count II and set the case for sentencing. See id. at 186. The
trial court subsequently sentenced him to 180 days, with credit for twelve actual
days served and the remaining 156 days suspended, and ordered ninety days of
probation. The sentencing order states as follows:
Appealed Order at 1.
[2] Crane appeals, raising the sole issue of whether the case should be remanded to
the trial court to amend its sentencing order to also reflect the disposition of
Count I. Crane asserts the accuracy of a sentencing order is important as a
practical matter because sentencing orders “are used by the Indiana State Police
to create criminal cross matches [that] play a role in establishing pretrial release
terms and sentences.” Brief of Appellant at 6-7. The State agrees the case
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2292 | June 18, 2020 Page 2 of 3
should be remanded to reflect the not guilty verdict on Count I. See Brief of
Appellee at 5.
[3] The sentencing order purports to show the crimes the defendant was charged
with and the resulting dispositions. See Appealed Order at 1. And yet this
sentencing order does not include any information about Count I. The better
practice is for sentencing orders to be complete and accurate with respect to the
charges that were tried and the disposition of each, not just the charges that
were reduced to a conviction. We therefore remand the case to the trial court to
amend its sentencing order to reflect that Crane was also tried on Count I and
found not guilty. See Stott v. State, 822 N.E.2d 176, 178 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)
(remanding to correct a sentencing order that did not accurately reflect the oral
disposition of all charges), trans. denied.
[4] Remanded.
May, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2292 | June 18, 2020 Page 3 of 3