Steven Murphy, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Steven Murphy appeals the trial court's calculation of his credit time when imposing sentence on a probation violation. Concluding that Murphy has not met his burden to show that the trial court erred in its credit time calculation, we affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[2] On June 28, 2021, Murphy was charged in Porter County under Cause No. 64D05-2106-F4-5939 (F4-5939) with the following: Count I: Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Dangerous Person, a Level 4 Felony; Count II: Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated Endangering a Person – Prior within 7 Years, a Level 6 Felony; Count III: Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated Endangering a Person, a Class A Misdemeanor; Count IV: Possession of Marijuana, a Class B Misdemeanor; Count V: Disorderly Conduct, a Class B Misdemeanor; and Count VI: Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated, a Class C Misdemeanor. On April 14, 2023, Murphy pled guilty to amended Count I: Carrying a Handgun without a Permit by a Convicted Felon, a Level 5 Felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Murphy was to be sentenced to five years, with two and a half years to be served either on community corrections or on PACT home detention, subject to qualification,¹ and the balance to be served on formal probation. On October 10, 2023, the court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Murphy according to its terms. The court noted that Murphy was then on probation under 45G03-1901-F4-8 (F4-8)² in Lake County and ordered that the sentence in F4-5939 “must run consecutive to the completion of the [F4-8] sentence.” Appellant's Appendix Vol. Two at 128. Despite being sentenced to an executed term, Murphy was not taken into custody at the conclusion of the hearing.

[3] On February 14, 2025, the State filed a petition to revoke Murphy's probation in F4-5939 based on the filing of criminal charges in two new cases in Lake County. On June 12, 2025, Murphy, who was in the Lake County Jail, filed a Motion to Transport, asking to be brought to Porter County. Murphy arrived at the Porter County Jail on June 24, 2025. On July 8, 2025, Murphy appeared before the court and admitted to violating his probation as alleged. The court set a disposition hearing for August 21, 2025. At that hearing, Murphy, citing Temme v. State, 169 N.E.3d 857 (Ind. 2021), argued that he should receive 462 days of credit time. Specifically, he argued that (1) he should have been placed on community corrections immediately after the trial court issued his sentence in F4-5939 and (2) because he was not, he should still receive credit for those days. The trial court continued the hearing to consider Murphy's argument.

[4] The disposition hearing resumed on September 2, 2025, at which time the court released him unsatisfactorily from probation in F4-5939 and ordered him to serve four years in the DOC. As to credit time, the court rejected Murphy's request for 462 days credit, awarding him credit for 143 days, i.e., from April 13, 2025 ³ to September 2, 2025. Murphy, pro se, filed an “Affidavit” with the court in which he referenced his desire to “appeal” the credit time applied at the time of his probation disposition. Appellant's Appendix Vol. Two at 161. The trial court treated this as a motion to correct error and denied the same. Upon Murphy's request, the trial court appointed him a public defender to pursue the instant appeal.

Discussion & Decision

[5] Murphy appeals the trial court's calculation of credit time to be applied to his sentence for his probation violation in F4-5939. “[S]entencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and are reviewed on appeal only for an abuse of discretion.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g 875 N.E.2d 218. However, because “jail time credit is a matter of statutory right, trial courts generally do not have discretion in awarding or denying such credit.” Roberts v. State, 998 N.E.2d 743, 747 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Molden v. State, 750 N.E.2d 448, 449 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)).

[6] Murphy relies solely on our Supreme Court's opinion in Temme v. State, 169 N.E.3d 857, to support his claim that he is “entitled to credit while he was erroneously at liberty from his sentencing date, October 10, 2023, to January 15, 2025, the day prior to [his] arrest in an unrelated matter.” Appellant's Brief at 11. Murphy's reliance on Temme is misplaced, and our Supreme Court's narrow holding is inapplicable to the circumstances in this case.

[7] In Temme, a defendant who was originally sentenced to a nine-year executed term was erroneously released ⁴ from incarceration when he still had 450 days left on his sentence. 169 N.E.3d at 859. Our Supreme Court determined that when a prisoner is undisputedly released or discharged from prison by mistake, without any contributing fault on his part, his sentence continues to run while he is at liberty, and he is entitled to credit for that time as if still incarcerated. Id. at 864. The court explained that its holding is

grounded in the idea that the State may not play cat and mouse with a defendant so as to push back a prisoner's release date, particularly if the prisoner bears no responsibility for the State's error. It also considers the prisoner's interest in serving a predictable sentence, places a limit on arbitrary use of government power, and fulfills society's expectation that a prisoner is held accountable for his or her actions.

Id. (citations and footnote omitted).

[8] In denying his request for additional credit time, the trial court found Temme inapplicable because Murphy was never in custody and therefore not erroneously released from prison. Murphy acknowledges that he was not incarcerated at the time of sentencing in F4-5939, but he argues that he was nevertheless “erroneously at liberty similar to the defendant in Temme.” Appellant's Brief at 10. In this vein, he asserts that because he was given a partially executed sentence in F4-5939, “he should not have been free to leave” at the conclusion of the October 10, 2023, disposition hearing. Id. We disagree.

[9] Murphy was sentenced to four years of probation under F4-8 in Lake County and six months later, he was sentenced in the instant action. The trial court ordered the sentence herein to run consecutive to the sentence imposed in F4-8, and Murphy does not challenge his sentence in this regard.⁵ Murphy's sentence in this case was not to begin until he completed his sentence in F4-8. Thus, Murphy has not established that the trial court was required to take him into custody at the time of the October 10, 2023, disposition hearing or that he was erroneously released from custody as is required under the narrow holding of Temme. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in not awarding additional credit time to Murphy.

[10] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   If not accepted into either program, Murphy was to serve this portion of his sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC).

2.   On April 19, 2023, Murphy had been sentenced to four years of probation in F4-8.

3.   April 13, 2025, appears to be the day that Murphy was arrested on the probation violation.

4.   Neither party disputed that the defendant had been “erroneous[ly]” released early on the sentence he was serving. 169 N.E.3d at 859. Rather, the parties disputed only “how to treat the time after Temme was released from prison.” Id.

5.   See Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(e) (providing that “[i]f, after being arrested for one (1) crime, a person commits another crime ․ before the date the person is discharged from probation, parole, or a term of imprisonment imposed for the first crime ․ the terms of imprisonment shall be served consecutively”).

Altice, Judge.

Vaidik, J. and Foley, J., concur.