BOSTON v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Willie Boston appeals the sentence the trial court imposed when it revoked his probation, arguing that the court erred in calculating his credit time. Concluding the court correctly credited Boston's time, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In February 2023, Boston pleaded guilty to Level 6 felony battery on a person less than fourteen years old and was sentenced to 910 days, all suspended to probation. Boston was given credit for sixteen days he spent in jail when he was arrested on the charge. The remaining sentence was 894 days.

[3] Boston violated his probation several times over the next couple of years. For the first occurrence, he admitted the violation, and the court simply released him back to probation with additional conditions. In the second instance, Boston spent time in jail awaiting his violation hearing. At the hearing, he admitted to the violation, and the court sanctioned him with the time he had served, which the court reporter stated was 173 days. On the third occasion, after a contested hearing, the court found Boston had committed the violation, revoked his probation, and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence, which the court found to be 430 days. Boston now appeals.¹

Discussion and Decision

[4] Boston contends the trial court erred in calculating his credit for time spent in confinement, which led to an error in calculating the balance of his previously suspended sentence. Specifically, he asserts the court correctly calculated his jail time credit at his second probation violation hearing as 173 days but then later erred when it credited him only 171 days.

[5] “A defendant is entitled to credit for the time spent in confinement before sentencing.” McAllister v. State, 913 N.E.2d 778, 782 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Because pre-sentence jail time credit is a matter of statutory right, trial courts have no discretion in awarding or denying such credit. Glover v. State, 177 N.E.3d 884, 886 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied. “Credit is to be applied for time spent in confinement that is the result of the charge for which the defendant is being sentenced.” Stephens v. State, 735 N.E.2d 278, 285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied.

[6] At the hearing on September 11, 2024, for Boston's second violation of probation, the court stated that an appropriate sanction would be time served and asked the court reporter how much time Boston had served. The court reporter replied that Boston had served “173 actual [days], 3/19/24 to 3/20/24, then 3/25/24 until today.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 62 (emphasis added). At the hearing on Boston's third violation, the court reporter again reviewed his credit time, stating:

He was originally sentenced on 2/14/23. After the sentence, he had 894 days suspended. Since then, he's been in jail 1/18/24 until 2/8/24, that's 22 actual, 3/25/24 until 9/11/24, 171 actual, 10/7/24 until today, 39 actual. So applied to the 894, he has 232 plus 232, that's 464, leaving 430 days remaining[.]

Id. at 96 (emphasis added). The difference in these two calculations is the two days of jail time from 3/19/24 to 3/20/24 included at the second hearing.

[7] A review of the record reveals that Boston was arrested on March 19, 2024, for possession of marijuana. See Appellant's App. Confid. Vol. II, p. 238 (Notice of Probation Violation filed 3/21/2024).² He was subsequently charged with committing B misdemeanor possession of marijuana on March 19, 2024 under 49D34-2406-CM-15829. See Appellant's App. Confid. Vol. III, p. 4 (Amended Notice of Probation Violation filed 6/7/2024). Thus, the time Boston spent in confinement from March 19, 2024 to March 20, 2024 was the result of the marijuana charge and wholly unrelated to his probation violation. Accordingly, any credit for that time was to be applied to his sentence for that offense. This continues well-established law. See Dolan v. State, 420 N.E.2d 1364, 1373 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (determining defendant not entitled to any credit toward probation violation sentence where confinement was result of charges totally unrelated to probation violation).

[8] Moreover, we note that the credit for those two days could not be applied to both a sentence for the marijuana offense and the balance of his previously suspended sentence because the two sentences are required to be served consecutively. See Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(e)(1) (2020) (providing that if, after being arrested for one crime, person commits another crime before date he is discharged from probation imposed for first crime, terms of imprisonment for crimes shall be served consecutively); see also Brown v. State, 907 N.E.2d 591, 595 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (where consecutive sentences are required, credit time cannot be earned against each of underlying sentences).

[9] It is also worth noting that Boston will never get credit for that time of confinement because the marijuana charge was later dismissed. As Justice Molter once wrote for this Court: “credit time does not work like store credit where it can be redeemed with the next crime.” Glover, 177 N.E.3d at 887. See also Pollard v. State, 78 N.E.3d 663, 666 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (stating that if criminal charges are dismissed, or defendant is acquitted, he does not “bank” days spent in confinement to be applied to future cases, including parole violations).

Conclusion

[10] In light of the foregoing, we conclude that Boston is not entitled to additional credit time. The trial court erroneously included credit for two days of confinement when Boston was incarcerated on an unrelated matter. The trial court corrected this error in its final calculation when it revoked Boston's probation and imposed the remainder of his previously suspended sentence. Thus, the trial court's order imposing a sentence of 430 days was not erroneous.

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Boston has filed a motion for expedited consideration of this appeal because his projected release date is June 16, 2025, and any decision on his sentence thereafter would be moot. By order issued contemporaneously with this decision, we grant Boston's request.

2.   This offense was the basis for Boston's second notice of probation violation. See Appellant's App. Confid. Vol. II, p. 238 (Notice of Probation Violation filed 3/21/2024); see also Appellant's App. Vol. II, p. 13 (CCS).

Shepard, Senior Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Pyle, J., concur.