ROBBINS v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Steven L. Robbins, pro se, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for modification of sentence.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] Following a jury trial in 2004, Robbins was convicted of murder and sentenced to sixty years in the Indiana Department of Correction (the DOC). His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. See Robbins v. State, Cause No. 49A04-0410-CR-455 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2005). Thereafter, he unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief. See Robbins v. State, Cause No. 49A04-1709-PC-2143 (Ind. Ct. App. June 13, 2019), corrected on reh'g (August 16, 2019), trans. denied.

[4] Thereafter, between October 2019 and August 2024, Robbins filed at least six separate pro-se requests for the trial court to modify his sentence, each of which was denied. This appeal is from the denial of his self-styled “Motion Requesting ‘Home’ Detention/Supervision for Violent Offenders” that he filed on August 2, 2024, along with supporting documents. The trial court denied the motion on August 19, 2024, explaining in its order: “The Court cannot consider a modification of this type of conviction without consent from the State.” Appendix at 68.

[5] On August 28, 2024, Robbins filed a motion to correct error, arguing that the ruling on his motion had been issued by a magistrate without judicial approval. Robbins's motion to correct error was denied the next day with the notation: “Based on I.C. § 33-23-5 etc. regarding Magistrates.” Id. at 71.

[6] Robbins now appeals. Additional information will be provided below as needed.

Discussion & Decision

1. Authority of Magistrate

[7] We initially address Robbins's misunderstanding regarding the authority of magistrates. Robbins relies on outdated law. Since July 1, 2020, the law has been that a magistrate has the same powers as a judge except for the power of judicial mandate. Ind. Code §§ 33-23-5-8, -8.5; see also Pilkington v. Pilkington, 227 N.E.3d 885, 893 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (detailing the history of legislative changes since 2018 to statutes dealing with powers of magistrates). This case does not involve an action for judicial mandate. See Ind. Code Chap. 34-27-3. Accordingly, the magistrate in this case had the power to deny Robbins's motions without seeking review or approval of the judge. Robbins's argument to the contrary is without merit.

2. Denial of Motion to Modify Sentence

[8] Pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-38-1-17(k), Robbins, as a violent criminal incarcerated for well over 365 days from the time of his sentencing, was not permitted to file a petition to modify his sentence without the consent of the prosecuting attorney. See id. (“After the elapse of the three hundred sixty-five (365) day period, a violent criminal may not file a petition for sentence modification without the consent of the prosecuting attorney.”). The trial court denied Robbins's request for modification of his sentence precisely because Robbins had not obtained the consent of the prosecuting attorney.

[9] Now on appeal, Robbins asserts that the prosecutor's alleged nonresponse to a similar motion for modification made in 2021 “was indicative of consent” and thus applicable to his 2024 motion. Appellant's Brief at 37. We initially observe that Robbins did not raise this argument below in support of his 2024 motion, and he provides no authority on appeal to support his proposition that a prosecutor's consent to an earlier petition to modify is applicable to a subsequent petition filed years later.

[10] Moreover, the record does not support Robbins's claim that the prosecutor acquiesced to his request back in 2021. That year appears to be the first and only time that Robbins requested permission from the prosecutor to seek modification of his sentence. Robbins, pro se, filed this request, along with his motion for modification of sentence and motion for a progress report, on April 19, 2021. On July 16, 2021, the trial court ordered the State to respond to the request within thirty days. Thereafter, Robbins retained counsel, and on August 12, 2021, Robbins, by counsel, sought a thirty-day extension for the prosecutor to respond so that counsel could prepare “a submission to the State in support of his Request for Consent to file for Modification to assist them in their determination.” Appendix at 27. The trial court granted the extension and ordered the prosecutor to respond by September 15, 2021.

[11] The record does not include a written response from the prosecutor, but subsequent pro-se filings by Robbins reflect that the prosecutor timely responded. For example, in a letter to the trial court filed on April 28, 2022, Robbins complained that the clerk of the court had waited eight months to forward certain filings to him including: “August 13, 2021, Deputy Attorney files his denial of motion” and “August 17, 2021, Deputy Attorney reviewed final decision[.]” Id. at 36. He then apologized to the court and the prosecutor for “wasting valuable time” with his past pro-se filings on the matter, explaining:

Defendant would have never addressed this Honorable Court had the Clerk of the Court forwarded a copy to said Defendant. [If] Defendant had known the State of Indiana made their decision eight (8) months ago Defendant would have not made a fool of himself arguing a case already lost before the/his progress report had even arrived to the courts.

Id. at 37.¹

[12] When Robbins filed his new petition in 2024 seeking modification of his sentence,² he was required to have obtained the consent of the prosecuting attorney, which he did not do. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied his petition without further consideration.

[13] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Even if the prosecutor did not respond by the September 2021 deadline, the trial court already denied on February 9, 2022, Robbins's pro-se Motion in Opposition to the State's Objection After the Court's Deadline. In that motion, Robbins argued, as he does now on appeal, that the prosecutor had failed to respond and thus had “forfeited any objections that Acquiesces and/or Waived their Consent to deny Defendant's Request to File for Modification.” Id. at 30. Robbins did not appeal the trial court's denial of that motion in 2022.

2.   In his reply brief, Robbins seems to suggest that he was not actually seeking modification of his sentence because “there was no request for either a suspension and/or reduction of [his] current sentence[.]” Appellant's Reply Brief at 4. But a request to be moved from the DOC to home detention is a request for modification of one's sentence. See Keys v. State, 746 N.E.2d 405, 407 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (“If after sentencing, a defendant requests to modify his placement and be allowed to serve his sentence in a community corrections program, this is a request for a modification of sentence under Ind. Code § 35-38-1-17.”).

Altice, Chief Judge.

Brown, J. and Tavitas, J., concur.