Troy Phillips v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Apr 30 2019, 11:02 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Troy Phillips Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Miami Correctional Facility Attorney General
Bunker Hill, Indiana
Katherine A. Cornelius
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Troy Phillips, April 30, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-1621
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kurt Eisgruber,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
The Honorable Steven Rubick,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G01-0302-FB-31230
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1621 | April 30, 2019 Page 1 of 3
[1] Troy Phillips, pro se, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for jail time
credit. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court abused
its discretion in denying his motion. Phillips has submitted an inadequate
record on appeal and consequently has waived our review of his claim.
Therefore, we affirm.
[2] Here, other than his mere allegations, Phillips has presented us with no
information to support his motion. The limited record before us indicates that
Phillips pled guilty to class B felony robbery and the trial court entered
judgment of conviction in January 2004. The record contains no copy of the
judgment or the trial court’s sentencing order. Consequently, we cannot
discern what credit time Phillips was actually awarded by the trial court, much
less whether he was entitled to more.
[3] Although Phillips claims that he served 325 days of presentence jail time and is
therefore entitled to 325 days of good time credit toward his sentence, we are
unable to consider his claim due to his failure to provide us with an adequate
record on appeal. We emphasize that pro se litigants are held to the same
standard as trained legal counsel and are required to follow procedural rules.
Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. It is the
appellant’s duty to provide a record that reflects the error alleged. Williams v.
State, 690 N.E.2d 162, 176 (Ind. 1997). To the extent the record is inadequate,
it results in waiver of the issue. Id.; see Thompson v. State, 761 N.E.2d 467, 471
(Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (failure to present adequate record regarding credit for
time served resulted in waiver of the issue on appeal). Based upon the limited
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1621 | April 30, 2019 Page 2 of 3
and inadequate record before us, there is no way for this Court to determine
whether Phillips is entitled to any additional credit time. The issue is waived,
and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 1
[4] Affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
1
Waiver notwithstanding, Phillips admits that the trial court properly stated in its sentencing order that he
had spent 325 days in presentence confinement. We have no idea whether the trial court’s sentencing order
also expressly accounted for good time credit. Even assuming that the sentencing order reported only actual
days served, our supreme court has held:
Sentencing judgments that report only days spent in pre-sentence confinement and fail to
expressly designate credit time earned shall be understood by courts and by the Department of
Correction automatically to award the number of credit time days equal to the number of pre-
sentence confinement days.
Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 792 (Ind. 2004). Thus, the sentencing order would have been corrected by
presumption, and therefore the trial court properly denied Phillips’s motion for jail time credit, which was
essentially a motion to correct erroneous sentence. See Brattain v. State, 777 N.E.2d 774, 776 (Ind. Ct. App.
2002) (holding that request for jail time credit was tantamount to motion to correct erroneous sentence).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1621 | April 30, 2019 Page 3 of 3