Antonio Terrell Sims, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Antonio Terrell Sims appeals the trial court's calculation of his credit time after Sims violated the terms of his probation and community corrections placement. Sims claims that he is entitled to an additional seventy-five days of credit time based upon the trial court's sentencing statement. We conclude, however, that Sims is mistaken and is attempting to take advantage of a minor mistake by the trial court that the trial court quickly corrected. Accordingly, we affirm.

Issue

[2] Sims raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court erred in calculating Sims’ credit time.

Facts

[3] In November 2022, the State charged Sims with multiple counts stemming from domestic battery incidents. Sims pleaded guilty to domestic battery, a Level 5 felony, and the State agreed to dismiss the other charges. On December 5, 2023, the trial court sentenced Sims to three years with two years suspended and one year of executed time served in community corrections on home detention.¹

[4] Sims later violated the conditions of his community corrections placement, and the trial court revoked 545 days of Sims’ previously suspended sentence, ordered Sims to serve those 545 days on home detention, and continued Sims’ community corrections placement on strict compliance. Thus, on June 28, 2024, the trial court ordered Sims to serve 910 days on home detention.

[5] In July 2024, the State alleged that Sims again violated the terms of his community corrections placement by leaving his residence without authorization on multiple occasions and being arrested for burglary, residential entry, escape, and criminal mischief. On September 27, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the alleged violations.

[6] At the hearing, a Community Corrections employee testified that Sims was entitled to the following credit time:

124+41 Days 2/15/2024-6/17/2024 HD [home detention]

11+4 Days 6/18/2024-6/28/2024 ADC [adult detention center]

3+1 Days 6/29/2024-7/1/2024 HD

* * * * *

87+29 Days 7/2/2024-9/26/2024 ADC

The Defendant has 225+75 Days of Class B Credit

Ex. Vol. I p. 45.

[7] The trial court found that Sims violated the terms of his community corrections placement and ordered him “to serve [his] remaining balance of [his] backup time in the Department of Corrections.” Tr. Vol. II p. 244. Regarding credit time, the trial court stated:

So, it is a -- it was a 910-day sentence. You receive credit for the 124 actual days, plus 41 days of good-time credit for the time that you were on home detention from February 15 to June 17th, 2024. You also receive 11 actual days, plus 4 days of credit for the time that you were in ADC from June 18, 2024 to June 28, 2024. You also receive credit for the three actual days, plus one day of good-time credit for the time that you were in -- sorry -- on home detention from June 29th, 2024, to July 1st, 2024, and you receive 87 actual days, plus 29 days of good-time credit for the time that you were in custody from July 2nd, 2024, to yesterday, September 26, 2024. Department of Corrections will give you credit for today. That gives you a total of 225 plus 75 actual days, plus 75 days of good-time credit. That leaves you with 610 days remaining.

Id. at 245 (emphasis added). The trial court's written order provides that Sims was entitled to credit for 225 days for accrued time and seventy-five days of good time credit. Sims now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Sims challenges the trial court's determination of his credit time. “Because credit time is a matter of statutory right, trial courts do not have discretion in awarding or denying such credit.” Harding v. State, 27 N.E.3d 330, 331-32 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). Two types of credit must be calculated: “ ‘(1) the credit toward the sentence a prisoner receives for time actually served, and (2) the additional credit a prisoner receives for good behavior and educational attainment.’ ” Maciaszek v. State, 75 N.E.3d 1089, 1092 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Purcell v. State, 721 N.E.2d 220, 222 (Ind. 1999)), trans. denied. These two types of credit are referred to as “accrued time” and “good time credit,” respectively.²

[9] Here, Sims was confined on home detention in a community corrections program. Accordingly, under the statutes in effect at the time of Sims’ conviction, he received “one (1) day of accrued time for each day” he was confined on home detention. Ind. Code § 35-38-2.6-6(b). Additionally, he was “entitled to earn good time credit under ․ IC 35-50-6-3.1.” I.C. § 35-38-2.6-6(c). Because Sims was convicted of a Level 5 felony, he was assigned to Class B for good time credit. See I.C. § 35-50-6-4(b). A person assigned to Class B earns one day of good time credit for every three calendar days or partial calendar days the person is imprisoned for a crime. I.C. § 35-50-6-3.1(c).

[10] Sims argues that he is entitled to an additional seventy-five days of credit time because the trial court stated: “That gives you a total of 225 plus 75 actual days, plus 75 days of good-time credit.” Tr. Vol. II p. 245. Based upon this statement by the trial court, Sims baldly asserts that he is entitled to credit for “225 days, plus 75 days, plus 75 days of good time credit.” Appellant's Br. pp. 10-11. Sims is mistaken. The trial court misspoke when it stated that Sims was entitled to “75 actual days” and then corrected itself and said that Sims was entitled to “75 days of good-time credit.” Tr. Vol. II p. 245. Credit time of 225 accrued days plus seventy-five days of good time credit corresponds with the evidence presented at the hearing and the trial court's written order. Sims does not explain how the evidence presented at the hearing is incorrect or explain why he is entitled to an additional seventy-five days of credit time. Rather, the trial court initially misspoke and then quickly corrected its error. Sims has failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in calculating his credit time.

Conclusion

[11] Sims has failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in calculating his credit time. Accordingly, we affirm.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The trial court ordered that the sentence be served consecutive to Sims’ sentence in another cause, and all of the credit time was applied to the sentence in the other cause.

2.   Indiana Code Section 35-50-6-0.5(3) provides: “ ‘Credit time’ means the sum of a person's accrued time, good time credit, and educational credit.”

Tavitas, Judge.

Chief Judge Altice and Judge Brown concur. Altice, C.J., and Brown, J., concur.