Joe E. Mourey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),                              FILED
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                          Aug 24 2016, 9:50 am
    regarded as precedent or cited before any                           CLERK
    court except for the purpose of establishing                    Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    and Tax Court
    the defense of res judicata, collateral
    estoppel, or the law of the case.
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                   ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Amanda O. Blackketter                                    Gregory F. Zoeller
    Blackketter Law, LLC                                     Attorney General of Indiana
    Shelbyville, Indiana
    Marjorie Lawyer-Smith
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Joe E. Mourey,                                           August 24, 2016
    Appellant-Defendant,                                     Court of Appeals Case No.
    73A04-1603-CR-599
    v.                                               Appeal from the Shelby Superior
    Court
    State of Indiana,                                        The Honorable Chris Monroe,
    Appellee-Plaintiff.                                      Senior Judge
    Trial Court Cause No.
    73D01-1405-FB-33
    Pyle, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A04-1603-CR-599 | August 24, 2016   Page 1 of 4
    Statement of the Case
    [1]   Joe Mourey (“Mourey”) appeals the trial court’s award of credit time for his
    pre-sentence incarceration. The trial court awarded Mourey seventy-seven (77)
    days of credit for pre-sentence incarceration but did not specify the award of an
    additional seventy-seven (77) of good time credit.1 Mourey requests that he
    receive credit for these additional days. However, pursuant to Robinson v. State,
    
    805 N.E.2d 783
    , 789 (Ind. 2004), where the trial court’s order fails to specify the
    additional good time credit, both courts and the Department of Correction
    (“DOC”) understand that these days are automatically awarded. We therefore
    find no error and affirm.
    [2]   We affirm.
    Issue
    Whether the trial court erred in calculating Mourey’s credit time
    for his pre-sentence incarceration.
    Facts
    [3]   In May 2014, the State charged Mourey with six counts. Mourey pleaded
    guilty to three counts, and the State dismissed the other charges. In June 2015,
    the trial court sentenced Mourey for the three convictions. Because Mourey
    1
    There are two different “time credits” that a defendant may earn: (1) “credit for time served[,]” which is
    the “credit toward the sentence a prisoner receives for time actually served[;]” and (2) “good time credit[,]”
    which is the “additional credit a prisoner receives for good behavior and educational attainment.” Purcell v.
    State, 
    721 N.E.2d 220
    , 222 (Ind. 1999), reh’g denied.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A04-1603-CR-599 | August 24, 2016               Page 2 of 4
    and the State disputed Mourey’s credit time, the trial court held a hearing on
    that issue after the sentencing hearing. Thereafter, the trial court awarded
    Mourey seventy-seven (77) days of accrued credit time for pre-sentence
    incarceration. The trial court’s order did not specify additional good time credit
    days. However, the Abstract of Judgment states that Mourey was awarded
    seventy-seven (77) days of accrued time credit as well as seventy-seven (77) days
    of good time credit. Mourey appeals the trial court’s failure to include the
    seventy-seven (77) days of good time credit in its sentencing order.
    Decision
    [4]   At the outset, we note that both parties agree that Mourey was entitled to
    seventy-seven (77) days of accrued credit for time served. They also both agree
    that Mourey is entitled to an additional seventy-seven (77) days of good time
    credit.
    [5]   “Under the Indiana Penal Code, prisoners receive credit time that is applied to
    reduce their term of imprisonment.” Robinson v. State, 
    805 N.E.2d 783
    , 789
    (Ind. 2004). The time spent in confinement before sentencing applies toward a
    prisoner’s fixed term of imprisonment. 
    Id. The amount
    of additional credit or
    good time credit is primarily determined by the prisoner’s credit time
    classification. 
    Id. INDIANA CODE
    § 35-38-3-2 provides that the judgment of
    conviction must include the amount of credit, including credit time earned, for
    time spent in confinement before sentencing. In addition, the Indiana Supreme
    Court has interpreted INDIANA CODE § 35-38-3-2 “to require that a trial court’s
    judgment of conviction separately include both the amount of time spent by the
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A04-1603-CR-599 | August 24, 2016   Page 3 of 4
    defendant prior to imposition of the sentence and also the amount of credit time
    earned in accordance with the defendant’s credit time class.” Robinson at 789.
    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 DOC automatically to award the number of credit time days equal
    to the number of presentence confinement days. Id, at 792.
    [6]   Here, Mourey “respectfully requests that he receive credit for the . . . additional
    seventy-seven (77) days for good time credit” because the trial court’s order
    included the seventy-seven (77) days of accrued credit time but did not
    specifically include the additional seventy-seven (77) days of good time credit.
    (Mourey’s Br. 5). However, pursuant to Robinson, both courts and the DOC
    understand the good time credit days are automatically awarded under these
    circumstances. The trial court did not err.2
    [7]   We affirm.
    Bradford, J., and Altice, J., concur.
    2
    Mourey does not allege that DOC failed to give him the earned credit time. That would be a different
    issue. If that was the case, Mourey would have to demonstrate that he presented his argument through the
    relevant DOC administrative grievance process and that he exhausted his administrative remedies. See Young
    v. State, 
    888 N.E.2d 1253
    , 1254 (Ind. 2008).
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A04-1603-CR-599 | August 24, 2016          Page 4 of 4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 73A04-1603-CR-599

Filed Date: 8/24/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/24/2016