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 jud icata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT : ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE : JOEL M. SCHUMM GREGORY F. ZOELLER Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana GARY R. ROM Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana


## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

CARL S. PIATT, ) ) Appellant

- Defendant, ) ) vs. ) No. 73A01

- 1202

- CR

- 116 ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee

- Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Charles D. O’Connor, Judge Cause No. 73C01

- 0803

- FB

- 6
September 13, 2012

MEM ORANDUM DECISION

– NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BRADFORD, Judge2

Appellant

- Defendant Carl Piatt appeals the trial court’s denial of his Motion to
Correct Erroneous Sentence , claiming he was deprived of “full credit” for the time he spent in custody between his ar rest and sentencing. We reverse and remand with instruction s .

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 19, 2008, Piatt was charged with thirty

- three counts of burglary, theft, conspiracy, and corrupt business influence. An arrest warrant was served on Piat t on May 14, 200 8 , while he was incarcerated for convictions on separate charges originating in Shelby Superior Court I . Piatt was detained on the Shelby Superior Court I charges on April 9, 2007, and he remained in custody until he was sentenced in this c ase pursuant to a p lea agreement on May 28, 2009 . Piatt pled guilty to eight counts of burglary in exchange for varying sentences of eight and twelve years on each count, all of which would be served concurrently with each other. The plea agreement furth er provided that Piatt’s sentences would be served concurrently with those given for his convictio ns in Shelby Superior Court I

. The plea agreement did not provide for p re - sentence jail time credit. On January 30, 2009, the State amended the charging ins trument in this case in order to more accurately reflect the da tes of Piatt’s alleged crimes. The date of this amendment was mistakenly referenced as the charging date in the Pre

- Sentence Investigation Report, which suggested, “[I]f credit time is to be c alculated from that date . . . the defendant has a total of 119 days in custody.” Appellant’s App. p. 179. “[H]aving considered the Pre

Sentence Report,” the trial court stated in its sentencing order that Piatt is “given credit for3

119 actual days and 1 19 good time credit days.” Appellant’s App. p. 58. Piatt’s trial counsel
made no objection to the calculation. On July 23, 2010, Piatt filed a pro se Petition for Jail Time Credit, which was denied on October 5, 2010 . A second pro se Petition for Jail Time Cre dit was filed on March 4, 2011 and denied on May 4, 2011 . Piatt filed a pro se Motion to Correct Erroneous Sentence on June 15, 2011, which the tri al court denied that same day . On December 2, 2011, Piatt filed a second pro se Moti on to Correct E rroneous Sentenc e , which w as denied on February 6, 2012 . Based on this final denial, Piatt filed a Notice o f Appeal on February 23, 2012 . On March 7, 2012, the trial court appointed a public defender for Piatt, who filed an Amended Notic e of Appeal on Apr il 25, 2012. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Piatt argues that he is entitled to 379 days of jail credit for the time spent in custody between his arrest on May 14, 2008, and his sentencing on May 28, 2009. The State concedes that Piatt is entitled to a re - calcu lation of his pre

- sentence jail time credit based on the same dates and events asserted by Piatt. The State neither affirms nor disputes Piatt’s proposed credit calculation of 379 days, and it does not offer its own revised calculation. When reviewing a t rial court’s decision to deny a motion to correct an erroneous
sentence, this court reviews the trial court’s factual findings only for abuse of discretion. Felder v. State , 870 N.E.2d 554, 560 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). The trial court’s legal conclusions, h owever, are reviewed de novo. Id.4

In its order denying Piatt’s Motion to Correct Erroneous Sentence, the trial court found Piatt’s motion to be “repetitive,” and therefore, the court deferred to its previous order denying Piatt’s Petition for Jail Time Cre dit on May 4, 2011. Appellant’s App. p. 126. There, the court stated, “Defendant is not allowed double credit,” as “the parties acknowledged that the sentence in this cause would be served concurrently with the sentences imposed under Shelby Superior Cou rt I.” Appellant’s App. p. 100. The rule against “double credit,” however, applies only to sentences that are served consecutively. Stephens v. State , 735 N.E.2d 278, 284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) ; Diedrich v. State , 744 N.E.2d 1004, 1006 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010 ). W here a person imprisoned awaiting sentencing on more than one charge is sentenced to concurrent terms for the separate crimes, that person is entitled to receive credit time applied a gainst each separate term

. Stephens , 735 N.E.2d at 284. Because Pi att’s sentences were to be served concurrently, the trial court erred in denying Piatt’s Motion to Correct to Erroneous Sentence. The trial court also erred in its calculation of Piatt’s jail time credit. A person who is awaiting trial or sentencing is in itially assigned to Class I and earns one day of credit time for each day the person is imprisoned. Ind. Code §§ 35

- 50

- 6

- 4(a ),

- 3(a). If that person is imprisoned during the same time p eriod for multiple offenses that are tried separately, the person is entitled to a “full credit” f o r each offense for which he is sentenced.” Dolan v.
State , 420 N.E.2d 1364 , 1373 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981); Diedrich , 744 N.E.2d at 1006. “ Full credit ” in this context is calculated as “the number of days the defendant spent in5

c onfinement from the date of arrest for the offense to the date of sentencing for that same offense.” Dolan , 420 N.E.2d at 1373

. Here, the trial court is presumed to have calculated Piatt’s jail time credit from the mistaken filing date of the charging ins trument, January 30, 2009, to the date of Piatt’s sentencing, May 28, 2009. In accordance with the Pre

- Sentence Investigation Report’s suggested calculation, the court calculated the length of Piatt’s pre

- sentence imprisonment as “119 actual days.” Appel lant’s App. p. 58. Notwithstanding that the correct filing date is March 19, 2008, the trial court erred by calculating Piatt’s credit from the date charges were filed. This court concludes that Piatt is entitled to “full credit” as calculated from his d ate of arrest, May 14, 2008, to his date of sentencing, May 28, 2009. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded with instruction s to give Piatt 379 days credit time for his pre

- sentencing imprisonment from May 14, 2008 , to May 28, 2009. ROB B, C.J., and BAKER, J., concur.