ELLIOT v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Darcy Anne Elliot resolved multiple criminal charges in a single plea agreement and received credit time for 104 days of pre-sentencing confinement. She appeals the trial court's denial of credit time for three days she spent in a drug court program and for the day on which she was sentenced. The State cross-appeals, arguing the trial court erroneously awarded credit time for twelve days during which Elliot was detained solely on charges that were later dismissed.

[2] Because Elliot was not confined while in drug court and began serving her sentence on the day it was imposed, the court did not err in excluding four days. Elliot is also not entitled to credit time for the twelve days she spent in pretrial confinement because of charges that were later dismissed. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

 Facts

[3] The issues on appeal concern four cases. On May 7, 2025, the State charged Elliot with battery against a public safety official and intimidation as Level 6 felonies, among other offenses, in cause number 34D02-2505-F6-1124 (the “Battery Case”). She was placed on pretrial release on May 27. On August 4, the State charged Elliot with Class A misdemeanor theft of money by misusing a debit card in cause number 34D03-2508-CM-1976 (the “Debit Card Case”), and she was arrested on August 8.¹ On August 19, the State charged Elliot with two counts of Level 5 felony theft of a firearm in cause number 34D02-2508-F5-2144 (the “Theft of a Firearm Case”), and she was served with an arrest warrant the next day. Then, on August 21, the State charged Elliot with Level 6 felony auto theft, among other offenses, in cause number 34D02-2508-F5-2159 (the “Auto Theft Case”), and she was served with another arrest warrant the day after that. The State also filed on August 21 a notice that Elliot had violated pretrial release conditions in the Battery Case, and she was served with an arrest warrant in that case too on August 22.

[4] The parties reached an agreement for Elliot to plead guilty to Level 6 felony battery and Level 6 felony intimidation in the Battery Case, Level 5 felony theft of a firearm in the Theft of a Firearm Case, and Level 6 felony auto theft in the Auto Theft Case. The State agreed to dismiss the Debit Card Case, and the parties agreed on an aggregate five-year executed sentence. That sentence would be deferred while Elliot participated in the Howard County Drug Court Program, and all charges would be dismissed if she successfully completed it. The program accepted Elliot on September 24, 2025, and she was released from jail. But Elliot violated the terms of her program agreement by cutting off her GPS monitor and absconding from the Open Arms facility three days later.

[5] On February 10, 2026, the trial court held a sentencing hearing and imposed the previously agreed five-year sentence. The court awarded credit time for pre-sentencing confinement from May 6 through May 27, 2025; August 8 through September 24, 2025; and January 7 through February 9, 2026, for a total of 104 days of confinement. Elliot appeals this credit time calculation.

 Discussion and Decision

[6] Prisoners in Indiana receive credit time for pre-sentencing confinement as a matter of statutory right. Purdue v. State, 51 N.E.3d 432, 436 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Every full or partial day of confinement counts toward accrued time. Ind. Code § 35-50-6-0.5(1). A person awaiting sentencing for a Level 6 felony is also assigned to Credit Class A and receives an additional day of good time credit for each full or partial day of confinement. Ind. Code §§ 35-50-6-3.1(b)(2), -4(a). But credit time is earned only when the pre-sentencing confinement “was the result of the criminal charge for which the sentence was imposed.” Glover v. State, 177 N.E.3d 884, 886 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021).

I. Elliot's Appeal Issues

[7] Elliot first argues the trial court erred in denying her credit time for September 25 through 27, 2025. But Elliot was not in confinement awaiting sentencing on those days because, on September 24, the court had deferred her sentence and released her from jail on GPS monitoring to participate in drug court. The credit time statutes do not provide for credit time in these circumstances. Ind. Code §§ 35-50-6-0.5(1), (5), -3.1(b); Meadows v. State, 2 N.E.3d 788, 791–93 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). Elliot also maintains the trial court should have awarded her credit time for February 10, 2026, the day on which she was sentenced. But a “term of imprisonment begins on the date sentence is imposed, unless execution of the sentence is stayed according to law.” Ind. Code § 35-38-3-2(d). Absent a stay of execution, therefore, the day of sentencing does not count toward pre-sentencing credit time. Moon v. State, 110 N.E.3d 1156, 1160 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). For these reasons, Elliot is not entitled to more credit time.

II. The State's Cross-Appeal Issue

[8] The State contends on cross-appeal that the trial court erred, however, by awarding Elliot credit time for August 8 through 19, 2025, because Elliot was not then confined on charges for which she was later sentenced. Elliot filed no cross-appellee's brief addressing the State's argument, so the State need only demonstrate prima facie error to prevail. State v. Combs, 921 N.E.2d 846, 850 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). A prima facie error is error that appears at first sight. Id.

[9] A prisoner earns pre-sentencing credit time for days spent confined as a result of the charge for which a sentence is imposed. Glover, 177 N.E.3d at 886. Thus, confinement on a charge that is ultimately dismissed cannot be credited toward a sentence on another charge. Credit time “does not work like store credit where it can be redeemed with the next crime.” Id. at 887. A person is deemed to be confined on a charge once they are arrested for the offense charged. Dolan v. State, 420 N.E.2d 1364, 1373 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981). A panel of this Court has also concluded that a prisoner was entitled to credit time when: he was arrested on charges that were later dismissed, but other charges under a separate cause number were pending at the same time; an arrest warrant for the pending charges had been returned unserved; the parties and the court treated all the charges as a single unit for purposes of the pleadings, hearings, discovery, and scheduling; and all the charges were considered together during plea negotiations. Purdue, 51 N.E.3d at 433–35, 437–39.

[10] Here, the record shows Elliot was placed on pretrial release in the Battery Case on May 27, 2025, and arrested for the offense charged in the Debit Card Case on August 8. Elliot was only served with arrest warrants in her three other cases after August 19—on August 20 in the Theft of a Firearm Case and on August 22 in the Battery and Auto Theft Cases. The Debit Card Case was ultimately dismissed, and Elliot was sentenced only on the other cases.

[11] Our prima facie review thus indicates that from August 8 through 19, Elliot was confined solely as a result of the charge in the Debit Card Case, not on any of the charges for which she was eventually sentenced. Unlike in Purdue, Elliot was on pretrial release in her pending Battery Case during the period in question, and so we find that decision distinguishable. Consequently, Elliot was not entitled to credit time for those twelve days.

 Conclusion

[12] We affirm the trial court's denial of credit time for September 25 through 27, 2025, and February 10, 2026. But we reverse the award of credit time for August 8 through 19, 2025. We therefore remand to the trial court with instructions to award Elliot credit time for 92 days of pre-sentencing confinement and 92 days for good time credit, and to amend its sentencing order in cause number 34D02-2505-F6-1124 accordingly.

[13] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We take judicial notice of records in cause number 34D03-2508-CM-1976. See Ind. Evidence Rule 201(b)(5).

Weissmann, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.