James W. Hamilton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Dec 22 2015, 9:04 am
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
James W. Hamilton Gregory F. Zoeller
Pendleton, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Jesse R. Drum
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
James W. Hamilton, December 22, 2015
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Cause No.
32A01-1508-CR-1201
v. Appeal from the Hendricks
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Mark A. Smith,
Appellee-Respondent. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
32D04-0909-FA-7
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1508-CR-1201 | December 22, 2015 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary
[1] James Hamilton appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for modification
of sentence. We affirm.
Issue
[2] Hamilton raises two issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the
trial court properly denied his motion for modification of sentence.
Facts
[3] In September 2009, the State charged Hamilton with two counts of Class A
felony dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug, Class C felony dealing in a
Schedule IV controlled substance, two counts of Class C felony possession of
cocaine or a narcotic drug, and Class D felony possession of a Schedule IV
controlled substance. In May 2011, Hamilton pled guilty to Class B felony
dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug, and the State dismissed the remaining
charges. The plea agreement provided for a sentence of 7,300 days with 5,110
days suspended, fourteen days of credit, 2,190 days served on work release, and
4,010 days of probation. The plea agreement also provided: “Upon any
probation violation of any kind, Mr. Hamilton must serve the entire suspended
sentence of 5,110 days at the Indiana Department of Corrections (not work
release or home detention). Mr. Hamilton may not petition the court for early
release of probation.” Appellant’s Br. p. 13.
[4] After only a couple weeks on work release, Hamilton tested positive for cocaine
and tried to bribe a correctional officer to “pull” the screen. Hamilton v. State,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1508-CR-1201 | December 22, 2015 Page 2 of 7
No. 32A05-1110-CR-599, slip op. at 3 (Ind. Ct. App. July 16, 2012). The trial
court revoked Hamilton’s placement in work release, revoked his probation,
and ordered him to serve 7,272 days at the Indiana Department of Correction.
Hamilton appealed the revocation of his probation, and we affirmed.1 See id. at
11.
[5] On May 14, 2015, Hamilton filed a petition for modification of his sentence.
Hamilton argued, in part, that the provision in the plea agreement requiring the
imposition of the entire suspended sentence upon any probation violation was a
“waiver of his right to a sentence modification” and was invalid under the
newly amended Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-17(1). The State objected to
Hamilton’s petition to modify his sentence. After a hearing, the trial court
denied Hamilton’s petition. The trial court concluded:
The Court, having considered the evidence and arguments does
now find that the Defendant’s request to modify his sentence
should be denied. To be sure, it seems as if the Defendant has
been active in taking steps to improve his self while incarcerated.
For this he is to be commended. However, even taking these
things into account, the Defendant has received some benefit
already by virtue of the 5-month time cut he received.
Additionally, the Defendant has only served about 21% of the
executed portion of his sentence taking into account his time cut.
1
Hamilton also filed a petition for post-conviction relief challenging his guilty plea, claiming prosecutorial
misconduct, and arguing that his trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective. The post-conviction
court denied the petition, and we affirmed the denial. Hamilton v. State, No. 32A01-1403-PC-128 (Ind. Ct.
App. Dec. 16, 2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1508-CR-1201 | December 22, 2015 Page 3 of 7
Furthermore, the Court finds that the Defendant’s reliance on the
newly amended I.C. § 35-38-1-17 is misplaced. The Defendant’s
plea agreement does not contain an express waiver against
sentence modification of the kind contemplated by the statute. A
“waiver” is an intentional relinquishment of a known right.
Here, the Defendant did not waive a right to modify, but instead
agreed to serve an agreed sentence upon a violation. The
provision in the plea agreement prohibiting the Defendant from
seeking an early release from probation became moot once the
Court revoked probation at the time of violation hearing.
Moreover, even if I.C. § 35-38-1-17(1) is applicable, it’s clear the
Indiana Legislature did not intend for the prohibition against
waiver to be absolute. The express language of the statute makes
clear that a finding of waiver of the right to modify may occur for
any other reason.
[6] App. p. 31. Hamilton filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court also
denied. Hamilton now appeals.
Analysis
[7] Hamilton argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his petition
for modification of sentence. “We review a trial court’s decision to modify a
sentence only for abuse of discretion.” Gardiner v. State, 928 N.E.2d 194, 196
(Ind. 2010). An abuse of discretion occurs if the court’s decision is clearly
against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court.
Myers v. State, 718 N.E.2d 783, 789 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1508-CR-1201 | December 22, 2015 Page 4 of 7
[8] Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-172 provides in part:
(e) At any time after:
(1) a convicted person begins serving the person’s
sentence; and
(2) the court obtains a report from the department of
correction concerning the convicted person’s
conduct while imprisoned;
the court may reduce or suspend the sentence and impose
a sentence that the court was authorized to impose at the
time of sentencing. The court must incorporate its reasons
in the record.
*****
(l) A person may not waive the right to sentence modification
under this section as part of a plea agreement. Any
purported waiver of the right to sentence modification
under this section in a plea agreement is invalid and
unenforceable as against public policy. This subsection
does not prohibit the finding of a waiver of the right to
sentence modification for any other reason, including
failure to comply with the provisions of this section.
2
Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-17 was amended effective July 1, 2014, to add the language of subsection (l).
See P.L.158-2013, § 396 (eff. July 1, 2014); P.L.168-2014, § 58 (eff. July 1, 2014). The statute was then
amended to apply to a person who commits an offense or is sentenced before July 1, 2014. See P.L.164-2015,
§ 2 (May 5, 2015).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1508-CR-1201 | December 22, 2015 Page 5 of 7
[9] According to Hamilton, the probation violation provision of his plea agreement
violated Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-17(l). The plea agreement provided:
“Upon any probation violation of any kind, Mr. Hamilton must serve the entire
suspended sentence of 5110 days at the Indiana Department of Corrections (not
work release or home detention). Mr. Hamilton may not petition the court for
early release of probation.” Appellant’s Br. p. 13. Hamilton violated his
probation, and the trial court sentenced him accordingly. When Hamilton filed
his request for a sentence modification, the trial court concluded that the plea
agreement provision was not invalidated by Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-17(l).
[10] Our primary goal in interpreting statutes is to determine and give effect to the
Legislature’s intent. Adams v. State, 960 N.E.2d 793, 798 (Ind. 2012). The best
evidence of that intent is a statute’s text. Id. The first step is therefore to decide
whether the Legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously on the point in
question. Id. When a statute is clear and unambiguous, we must apply the
plain and ordinary meaning of the language. Id. There is no need to resort to
any other rules of statutory construction. Id. As a result, we need not delve
into legislative history if no ambiguity exists. Id. But a statute is ambiguous
when it admits of more than one reasonable interpretation. Id. In that case, we
resort to the rules of statutory construction so as to give effect to the
Legislature’s intent. Id. For example, we read the statute as a whole, avoiding
excessive reliance on a strict, literal meaning or the selective reading of
individual words. Id. In a criminal case, we construe an ambiguous statute in
favor of the defendant. Id.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1508-CR-1201 | December 22, 2015 Page 6 of 7
[11] The clear language of Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-17(l) prohibits only the
waiver of the right to sentence modification as part of a plea agreement.
Hamilton did not agree in his plea agreement to waive a right to sentence
modification; rather, he agreed to serve a certain sentence upon a probation
violation. The statute specifically “does not prohibit the finding of a waiver of
the right to sentence modification for any other reason . . . .” I.C. § 35-38-1-
17(l). Consequently, Hamilton’s argument fails.
[12] Moreover, even if the provision of the plea agreement was invalid under
Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-17(l), Hamilton was not guaranteed a
modification of his sentence. The trial court commended Hamilton for taking
classes to better himself. However, the trial court also noted that Hamilton had
been awarded a five-month time cut, that he had a lengthy criminal history and
a history of violating his probation, that he had five conduct violations between
January 2012 and December 2014, and that he had served only twenty-one
percent of the executed portion of his sentence. Hamilton has not shown that
the trial court abused its discretion by denying his petition for modification of
his sentence.
Conclusion
[13] The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hamilton’s petition for
modification of his sentence. We affirm.
[14] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1508-CR-1201 | December 22, 2015 Page 7 of 7