BEEMAN v. STATE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Michael C. Beeman appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for credit time. The State concedes Beeman is entitled to additional credit time. Consequently, we reverse and remand with instructions.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The State filed six cases against Beeman over several years. In Cause Number 48C05-2006-F6-1467 (“F6-1467”), Beeman was placed on home detention while the case was pending. During that period, the State jailed Beeman for allegedly violating a condition of his home detention placement. The trial court returned Beeman to home detention.

[3] Later, the State filed charges against Beeman in Cause Number 48C05-2202-F6-496 (“F6-496”). The parties negotiated a plea agreement to resolve all six cases. In F6-1467, Beeman agreed to plead guilty to Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine. In F6-496, he agreed to plead guilty to Level 6 felony escape and Class A misdemeanor theft. The State dismissed the four remaining cases and agreed to recommend a maximum sentence of thirty months, with half suspended to probation.

[4] On December 3, 2023, the trial court accepted the parties’ agreement. The court imposed the recommended sentence of fifteen months executed in F6-1467 and fifteen months suspended to probation in F6-496. Next, the court issued a sentencing order and a credit time order in F6-1467. In both orders, the court determined Beeman was entitled to ninety-nine days of credit for pretrial confinement and the same amount of good time credit. But the abstract of judgment states he is entitled to only ninety-eight days of credit time.

[5] On December 18, 2023, Beeman filed a pro se motion for additional credit time. The trial court denied the motion, and this appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Beeman argues the trial court failed to accurately credit him for time he spent in jail while F6-1467 was pending. He also claims an error in the abstract of judgment deprived him of a day of credit time.

[7] In general, a person who is confined awaiting trial or sentencing is entitled to good time credit for that confinement. See Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3.1 (2023) (describing classifications for credit time accrual). The trial court's judgment of conviction must include “the amount of credit time earned for time spent in confinement before sentencing[.]” Ind. Code § 35-38-3-2(b)(4) (2023). “Because pre-sentence jail time credit is a matter of statutory right, trial courts have no discretion in awarding or denying that credit.” Glover v. State, 177 N.E.3d 884, 886 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied.

[8] Beeman was jailed in F6-1467 for thirty-six days after the State alleged he had violated a condition of his home detention placement. He was also in custody for two other cases, but the State later dismissed those cases under the parties’ plea agreement. The State concedes Beeman is entitled to thirty-six days of credit time in F6-1467. The State also agrees that the abstract of judgment for F6-1467 misstated Beeman's accrued credit time as ninety-eight, rather than ninety-nine, days. The trial court must correct the sentencing order and abstract of judgment to show that Beeman is entitled to 135 days of credit.

Conclusion

[9] For the reasons stated above, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand to correct the sentencing order and abstract of judgment.

[10] Reversed and remanded with instructions.

Baker, Senior Judge.

Tavitas, J., and Foley, J., concur.