Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2890 | May 6, 2019 Page 1 of 4

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE

Marshaun Bugg

Michigan City, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Caryn N. Szyper

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Marshaun Bugg,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

May 6, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-2890

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Kurt M. Eisgruber, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G01-0202-MR-59298

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2890 | May 6, 2019 Page 2 of 4

Statement of the Case

[1] Marshaun Bugg1 appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to modify his 

sentence to placement in a community corrections program. Bugg raises two 

issues for our review, which we restate as whether the trial court erred when it 

denied Bugg’s motion.2

 We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On July 7, 2006, the trial court sentenced Bugg to sixty-five years in the 

Department of Correction following his conviction for murder. On November 

7, 2018, Bugg filed a “motion for alternative placement” with the trial court. 

Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 16. In that motion, Bugg stated that he “does not 

wish the Court to construe this Motion as a ‘Motion for Modification of

Sentence’[;] Sentence Length to remain at present time and only alternative 

placement is to be considered herein.” Id. Bugg did not obtain the prosecuting 

attorney’s consent to his request for alternative placement. The trial court 

denied Bugg’s motion the same day. This appeal ensued.

 

1

 There is confusion in the record over the spelling of Bugg’s name. We follow the spelling Bugg uses in his 

own signature.

2

 Bugg’s purported issue that the trial court clerk somehow interfered with his motion because “DENIED” 

was later stamped on that motion is not supported by cogent reasoning, and we do not consider it. See Ind. 

Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2890 | May 6, 2019 Page 3 of 4

Discussion and Decision

[3] On appeal, Bugg asserts that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to

modify his placement. In general, we review a trial court’s decision regarding 

modification of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. Johnson v. State, 36 

N.E.3d 1130, 1133 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion 

occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of 

the facts and circumstances before the court or when the court misinterprets the 

law. Id. However, where, as here, the question on appeal involves the 

interpretation of certain statutes, our review is de novo. Id.

[4] Bugg’s request in his motion to the trial court notwithstanding, the trial court 

treated his motion as a motion for modification of sentence under Indiana Code 

Section 35-38-1-17. That statute states that a defendant who, like Bugg, has 

been convicted of murder (among other offenses) “may, . . . [a]fter the elapse of

[a] three hundred sixty-five (365) day period” from the date of his sentencing, 

“file a petition for sentence modification” only if “the consent of the 

prosecuting attorney” is given. Ind. Code § 35-38-1-17(k) (2018). Our case law 

is clear that a request for a change in placement is a request for a “sentence 

modification” under that statute. Keys v. State, 746 N.E.2d 405, 407 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2001). And the record is clear here that Bugg did not obtain the consent 

of the prosecuting attorney when he made his request for a change in 

placement. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied Bugg’s motion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2890 | May 6, 2019 Page 4 of 4

[5] Nonetheless, Bugg argues that the trial court applied the wrong statute to his 

motion to modify his placement. In particular, Bugg asserts that the trial court 

should have treated his motion as a request under Indiana Code Chapter 35-38-

2.6, which applies to the direct placement of a defendant to a community 

corrections program at the time of sentencing. But we have long recognized 

that Chapter 35-38-2.6 “merely authorizes the trial court to suspend a sentence 

and place a defendant in a community corrections program at the time of 

sentencing . . . . [I]t does not allow the trial court to modify placement after 

sentencing.” Id. In other words, Indiana Code Chapter 35-38-2.6 did not apply 

to Bugg’s motion for modification of placement. Id.; see also I.C. § 35-38-2.6-

3(a) (“The court may, at the time of sentencing, suspend the sentence and order a 

person to be placed in a community corrections program . . . .”) (emphasis 

added). Accordingly, Bugg’s assertion that the trial court erred when it denied 

his motion for modification of placement fails as a matter of law, and we affirm 

the trial court’s judgment.

[6] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Robb, J., concur.