GROW v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] In November 2025, Andrew Grow entered into a written plea agreement with the State. Pursuant to that agreement, Grow pleaded guilty to Level 3 felony child molesting and Level 4 felony child molesting, and, in exchange, the State agreed to dismiss other pending charges. Grow's plea agreement left sentencing open to the trial court's discretion.

[2] In his plea agreement, Grow specifically waived his right to appeal the sentence imposed by the trial court. Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 91. Grow's waiver expressly included “Collateral Consequences” that might arise from his guilty plea, including “Sentencing Consequences.” Id. at 92, 94.

[3] At the change-of-plea hearing, the trial court engaged counsel on whether Grow's plea and the factual basis for his plea required the court to find him to be a credit-restricted felon. Grow made no argument that he was not a credit-restricted felon and did not object to the court's inquiry or ensuing finding on that question. The trial court then accepted Grow's plea agreement and sentenced him accordingly. In sentencing him, the trial court determined that Grow was a credit-restricted felon.

[4] Grow now appeals and argues that the trial court erred in finding him to be a credit-restricted felon. The State argues that Grow's appeal challenges his sentence or a collateral aspect of his sentence and was waived in his plea agreement accordingly. The State also argues that Grow did not object or otherwise challenge the trial court's inquiry regarding his status as a credit-restricted felon.

[5] Grow's brief to our Court omits the waiver provisions of his guilty plea. Further, he has not filed a reply brief to argue that the State's assessment of his waiver provisions is erroneous.

[6] We agree with the State that Grow's argument on appeal is improper on direct appeal as it is contrary to the express waiver provisions of his plea agreement. See, e.g., Anderson v. State, 269 N.E.3d 817, 820-21 (Ind. 2025). Any remedy Grow may have on this issue must be pursued through our post-conviction process. See id. at 821.

[7] We therefore dismiss this appeal.

[8] Dismissed.

Mathias, Judge.

Kenworthy, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.