WASHINGTON v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] While serving a sentence in Illinois, David Travell Washington was transferred to Indiana to face charges in Cause No. 45G02-1710-F3-42 (F3-42). He then committed a new crime while incarcerated in Indiana and was charged under Cause No. 45G02-2407-F4-109 (F4-109). Washington entered into a plea agreement to resolve both Indiana cases. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Washington to eight years in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) for Level 4 felony burglary under F3-42 and one year for Level 5 felony prisoner possessing a dangerous weapon under F4-109. The trial court ordered the F3-42 sentence to be served consecutively to the Illinois sentence and the F4-109 sentence to be served consecutively the F3-42 sentence.

[2] On appeal, Washington contends that the trial court erred by failing to give him credit time toward the F3-42 sentence for the period after he was transferred from custody in Illinois to resolve charges under F3-42. Because the trial court ordered F3-42 to be served consecutively to the Illinois sentence and Washington was serving the Illinois sentence during this period of pretrial incarceration in Indiana, we conclude that the trial court properly denied credit time.

[3] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[4] On October 21, 2017, the State charged Washington under F3-42 with Level 3 felony burglary, Level 3 felony robbery, Level 4 felony burglary, and Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. The fourth count was later amended to Level 5 felony carrying a handgun without a license. Washington was incarcerated on these pending charges from October 20, 2017, to January 11, 2018.

[5] Thereafter, Washington was incarcerated in Illinois on pending criminal causes in that state. On July 17, 2018, after being advised of Washington's custody in Illinois, the trial court in F3-42 issued a general continuance and ordered a detainer warrant to be issued for Washington. Washington then remained incarcerated in Illinois for several years and eventually pled guilty under two Illinois cause numbers, resulting in an aggregate twenty-four-year sentence being imposed on March 7, 2024.

[6] On March 26, 2024, Washington was transferred to the Lake County Jail pursuant to the interstate detainer warrant. He continued serving his Illinois sentence while in Indiana. After being found with a shank fashioned out of a broken wooden broom handle, the State charged Washington on July 23, 2024, under F4-109, with Level 4 felony prisoner possessing a deadly weapon.

[7] On March 18, 2025, Washington entered a plea agreement with the State to resolve both F3-42 and F4-109. He pled guilty under F3-42 to Level 4 felony burglary and under F4-109 to a lesser charge of Level 5 felony prisoner possessing a dangerous weapon. The plea agreement placed a cap of eight years on the sentence under F3-42 and provided for a one-year sentence under F4-109. At a hearing on April 15, 2025, the court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Washington to eight years in the DOC under F3-42 and one year in the DOC under F4-109. The court ordered the F3-42 sentence to be served consecutively to the Illinois sentence and the F4-109 sentence to be served consecutively to that in F3-42.

[8] Regarding credit time, which is at issue on appeal, the trial court's sentencing order provided that for F3-42 Washington was entitled to credit for time spent in custody from October 20, 2017, to January 11, 2018, plus good time credit. The trial court indicated that “[a]ll other credit time applies to the Cook County Case 18C66005001” – the Illinois case for which Washington was still serving a sentence. Appendix Vol. 2 at 151. The court also noted that Washington was not entitled to credit time in F4-109 due to the consecutive nature of the sentence.

[9] Washington now appeals the trial court's determination of credit time. Additional information will be provided below as needed.

Discussion & Decision

[10] “Because pre-sentence jail time credit is a 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.

[11] It is well established that an award of credit time is dependent on the pretrial confinement having “result[ed] from the criminal charge for which the sentence is being imposed.” See Keene v. State, 202 N.E.3d 481, 483 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). Further, where a defendant's pretrial confinement was based on multiple cases, like here, courts must look to whether the sentences are ordered to be served consecutively. That is, “when consecutive sentences are involved, credit time is deducted from the aggregate total of the consecutive sentences, not from an individual sentence.” State v. Lotaki, 4 N.E.3d 656, 657 (Ind. 2014). Otherwise, a defendant would receive more credit than he is entitled to and would effectively enable him to serve part of the sentences concurrently. Id.

[12] On appeal, Washington argues that he should have received credit toward F3-42 for the time he spent at the Lake County Jail after being transferred from Illinois. It is undisputed, however, that Washington was serving his Illinois sentence while confined in Lake County Jail from March 23, 2024, until he was sentenced on April 15, 2025. Indeed, his trial counsel confirmed that Washington was not entitled to credit time in Indiana for this period because “it's all going toward Illinois.” Transcript at 43; see also id. at 46 (“I know it's all going to the Illinois matter.”). During the discussion regarding credit time, Probation Officer Leah Ray also confirmed that this time “goes on Illinois.” Id. at 47.

[13] The record is clear that Washington's eight-year sentence in F3-42 was ordered to be served consecutively to his Illinois sentence,¹ which he was serving during the period of pretrial confinement at issue on appeal. Accordingly, the trial court properly determined that Washington was not entitled to additional credit time toward his Indiana sentence because granting such would effectively permit Washington to serve a portion of his Indiana and Illinois sentences concurrently. See Lotaki, 4 N.E.3d. at 657; cf. Maciaszek v. State, 75 N.E.3d 1089, 1094 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (holding that defendant transferred to Indiana while serving a New Hampshire sentence was entitled to credit time for time spent in Indiana jail awaiting trial because “the Indiana and New Hampshire sentences were to be served concurrently”), trans. denied; Ramirez v. State, 455 N.E.2d 609, 617 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983), summarily aff'd without opinion, 471 U.S. 147 (1985) (holding that defendant was entitled to credit time toward both his Michigan sentence and his Indiana sentence where there was no indication in the record that the sentences were to run consecutively).²

[14] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Washington concedes on appeal that the trial court properly ordered these sentences to be served consecutively.

2.   Washington complains that the Indiana trial court could not know whether Illinois will ultimately grant credit for the time he spent in Indiana while awaiting trial. Regardless, the sentencing order makes clear that the sentences are to be served consecutively and that all credit time following Washington's transfer from Illinois to stand trial in Indiana “applies to the Cook County Case 18C66005001.” Appendix Vol. 2 at 151. Further, the Interstate Agreement on Detainers provides that the sending state is deemed to retain custody of and jurisdiction over the prisoner and that the time being served on the sentence shall continue to run while the prisoner is in the temporary custody of the receiving state. Ind. Code § 35-33-10-4(5)(f) and (g). If Illinois denies credit time for Washington's period of confinement from March 23, 2024, to April 15, 2025, Washington can pursue relief through post-conviction proceedings.

Altice, Judge.

May, J., and Foley, J., concur.