Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2003 | January 30, 2020 Page 1 of 11

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Charles W. Lahey

South Bend, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Caroline G. Templeton

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jason L. Anderson,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

January 30, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-2003

Appeal from the LaPorte Superior 

Court

The Honorable Michael S. 

Bergerson, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

46D01-0010-CF-124

Najam, Judge.

Statement of the Case

[1] Jason L. Anderson appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation. 

Anderson raises three issues for our review, which we restate as follows:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2003 | January 30, 2020 Page 2 of 11

1. Whether Anderson invited any error in the delay in his 

sentencing on Count II when, in his plea agreement, he 

affirmatively agreed to a delay of up to nearly ten years for 

that sentencing.

2. Whether the trial court erred when it relied on the whole 

of Anderson’s plea agreement to reject his argument that 

he had been twice sentenced on Count I.

3. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support 

the revocation of Anderson’s probation.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In September of 2000, the State charged Anderson with three counts of dealing 

in cocaine, two as Class A felonies and one as a Class B felony. In February of 

2001, Anderson entered into a written plea agreement with the State regarding 

those three charges, which agreement the trial court later accepted. According 

to the agreement:

[7(A)]. [Anderson] will ple[a]d guilty under Count I[] to the 

lesser included offense of Dealing in Cocaine as [a] Class B 

Felony[] and to Count II, Dealing in Cocaine, as charged as a 

Class A Felony, respectively;

B. As to Count I, the State will recommend and [Anderson] 

will not oppose[] a sentence of ten (10) years incarceration at the 

Indiana Department of Correction[], of which ten (10) years will 

be suspended and served as follows:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2003 | January 30, 2020 Page 3 of 11

i. The first five (5) years of the suspended sentence 

portion shall be served through the LaPorte County 

Community Corrections Work Release Program.

* * *

ii. The second five (5) years of the suspended portion 

shall be served . . . under the Court’s Order of 

Probation . . . .

* * *

D. As to Count II . . . , [Anderson] specifically waives his 

right to be sentenced within thirty (30) days and the cause will be 

continued for sentencing . . . as set forth below:

i. If, on March 17, 2011, [Anderson] has complied 

with all terms and conditions of Probation and Work 

Release, the State will move to dismiss;

ii. However, if[,] at the time of the sentencing hearing, 

or anytime before, on motion of the State or Probation, the 

Court determines that [Anderson] has violated the 

conditions of Work Release or Probation, then the parties 

will proceed to argue sentencing alternatives as authorized 

by [law] on Count I [sic1

], Dealing Cocaine, as a Class A 

felony.

1

 As discussed in more detail below, here the plea agreement is of course referring to Count II, not Count I.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2003 | January 30, 2020 Page 4 of 11

E. The State will dismiss Count III[, dealing in cocaine as a 

Class A felony].

Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 17-18 (italics removed).

[4] In 2004, while Anderson was serving his probation pursuant to his plea 

agreement, the State filed a petition to revoke his probation. Thereafter, 

Anderson admitted to violating the terms of his probation. The trial court 

revoked Anderson’s probation and ordered him to serve ten years in the 

Department of Correction on Count I, the Class B felony, and a concurrent 

term of twenty years on Count II, the Class A felony.

[5] In November of 2011, Anderson moved to modify his sentence. The court 

granted his motion and ordered him to serve six months in the LaPorte County 

Jail followed by work release for eighteen months. Thereafter, if compliant, 

Anderson would be permitted to serve “the remainder of [his] term” on 

probation. Id. at 24.

[6] In 2017, while Anderson was serving his term of probation pursuant to the 

court’s 2011 order, the State filed a second petition to revoke Anderson’s 

probation. According to the State’s amended petition, Anderson violated the 

conditions of his probation when he committed new offenses of dealing in a 

narcotic drug, as a Level 2 felony; dealing in cocaine, as a Level 2 felony; and 

dealing in marijuana, as a Level 5 felony. The State also alleged that Anderson 

had committed new federal offenses of felony possession of firearms, for which 

Anderson had pleaded guilty in a federal district court.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2003 | January 30, 2020 Page 5 of 11

[7] Anderson moved to dismiss the State’s second petition to revoke his probation. 

According to Anderson, his current term of probation was based on paragraph 

7(D)(ii) of his plea agreement, that paragraph references “Count I,” Anderson 

had already served his sentence on Count I, and, thus, the court was without 

jurisdiction to place him on probation pursuant to the plea agreement. After a 

fact-finding hearing, the trial court denied Anderson’s motion to dismiss and 

found that he had violated the terms and conditions of his probation as alleged 

by the State. The court then ordered Anderson to serve ten years in the 

Department of Correction. 

[8] Anderson filed a motion to correct error and alleged, in addition, that the trial 

court had lost jurisdiction over him because the original sentencing order, 

which accepted the plea agreement, “created an unreasonable delay in 

sentencing and the sentence on Count II . . . was, consequently, without 

judicial authority and therefore void.” Id. at 45 (underlining removed). 

Anderson also renewed his argument from his motion to dismiss. The court 

heard argument on Anderson’s motion to correct error, after which it denied his 

motion. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

Issue One: Purported Delay in Sentencing

[9] On appeal, Anderson first asserts that the trial court erred as a matter of law 

when it failed to sentence him on Count II within thirty days of accepting his 

plea agreement in 2001. But we will not consider this argument. “[I]nvited 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2003 | January 30, 2020 Page 6 of 11

error typically forecloses appellate review altogether.” Batchelor v. State, 119 

N.E.3d 550, 556 (Ind. 2019). “An appellant will not be permitted to take 

advantage of errors which he himself committed, or invited or induced the trial 

court to commit . . . .” Id. at 557 (quoting Armstrong v. Presslor, 225 Ind. 291, 

295, 73 N.E.2d 751, 753 (1947)). “[T]o establish invited error, there must be 

some evidence that the error resulted from the appellant’s affirmative actions as 

part of a deliberate, ‘well-informed’ trial strategy.” Id. at 558.

[10] The trial court’s delay in sentencing Anderson on Count II resulted from the 

plain terms of Anderson’s own plea agreement. The agreement could not be 

more clear on precisely this point: “As to Count II . . . , [Anderson] specifically 

waives his right to be sentenced within thirty (30) days and the cause will be 

continued for sentencing” up to “March 17, 2011.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 

18. Anderson’s complaint on appeal that the trial court erred when it “created a 

delay in sentencing for more than ten years” as to Count II simply disregards 

the fact that the delay was the product of his own affirmative agreement. 

Appellant’s Br. at 10. Any error in the delay was invited by Anderson and is 

not available for appellate review.

Issue Two: Whether Anderson Was Twice Sentenced On Count I

[11] Anderson next relies on an obvious typographical error to assert that the court 

erred when it placed him on probation. Specifically, Anderson complains 

about the italicized language below from his plea agreement:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2003 | January 30, 2020 Page 7 of 11

D. As to Count II . . . , [Anderson] specifically waives his 

right to be sentenced within thirty (30) days and the cause will be 

continued for sentencing . . . as set forth below:

i. If, on March 17, 2011, [Anderson] has complied 

with all terms and conditions of Probation and Work 

Release, the State will move to dismiss;

ii. However, if[,] at the time of the sentencing hearing, 

or anytime before, on motion of the State or Probation, the 

Court determines that [Anderson] has violated the 

conditions of Work Release or Probation, then the parties 

will proceed to argue sentencing alternatives as authorized 

by [law] on Count I, Dealing Cocaine, as a Class A felony.

Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 18 (emphasis added). According to Anderson, the 

italicized reference to Count I above means that the trial court had no authority 

to either sentence him to probation on Count II, because that is not what is 

written, or on Count I, in that, by that time, Anderson had served his sentence 

on Count I. In effect, Anderson continues, his placement on probation 

sentences him twice on Count I.

[12] We interpret plea agreements de novo. State v. Smith, 71 N.E.3d 368, 370 (Ind. 

2017). Our ultimate goal is to determine the intent of the parties at the time 

they made the agreement. Id. We consider the agreement as a whole in 

determining its meaning. Care Grp. Heart Hosp., LLC v. Sawyer, 93 N.E.3d 745, 

752 (Ind. 2018).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2003 | January 30, 2020 Page 8 of 11

[13] Anderson’s argument on this issue is that “Count I, Dealing Cocaine, as a Class 

A felony” in paragraph 7(D)(ii) of his plea agreement speaks for itself. We 

agree that it does speak for itself—as an obvious typographical error. In the 

plea agreement, Anderson pleaded guilty to “Count I, . . . Dealing Cocaine as a 

Class B felony, and to Count II, Dealing in Cocaine, as charged as a Class A 

Felony . . . .” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 17 (italics removed). That is, the only 

Class A felony he pleaded guilty to was charged under Count II, as made clear 

by paragraph 7(A) of his plea agreement. The plea agreement then, in 

paragraph 7(B), disposes of his sentence “[a]s to Count I.” Id. (italics removed).

[14] Having disposed of that sentence, in paragraph 7(D) the agreement then

proceeds to explain how the delayed sentencing “[a]s to Count II” will proceed. 

Id. at 18 (italics removed). In particular, that paragraph states that Anderson’s 

“sentencing” for “Count II” will be “as set forth below,” and subparagraphs (i)

and (ii) then follow. Id. (italics removed). Those two subparagraphs operate to 

say, in effect, that, if Anderson were to successfully complete his suspended 

sentence on Count I, the State would move to dismiss Count II. “However,” if 

Anderson did not successfully complete the suspended sentence on Count I, 

“the parties [would] proceed to argue sentencing alternatives as authorized by 

[law] on Count I [sic], Dealing Cocaine, as a Class A Felony.” Id.

[15] The last reference to “Count I” does not make any sense if read literally, as 

Anderson urges us to do. The reference is clearly intended to be to “Count II” 

based on the structure of the agreement, the whole of the text, and the 

immediately subsequent reference to a Class A felony. And, again, our goal in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2003 | January 30, 2020 Page 9 of 11

the interpretation of an agreement is to give effect to the intent of the parties 

based on the agreement as a whole. Accordingly, we reject Anderson’s 

argument on this issue.

Issue Three: Sufficiency of the Evidence

[16] Last, Anderson asserts that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to 

support the revocation of his probation.

2

 A trial court’s decision that a violation 

of probation has occurred is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Bennett v. 

State, 119 N.E.3d 1057, 1058 (Ind. 2019). 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. Id.

[17] The State alleged, among other things, that Anderson had violated the 

conditions of his probation when he committed new offenses. But, according to 

Anderson, the State failed to prove the date of any such offenses. Therefore, he 

continues, the State failed to prove that the alleged new offenses occurred 

“during the probationary period,” as necessary to establish those offenses as the 

grounds for revoking his probation. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (a)(1) (2019).

[18] Anderson’s probation officer, Lyn Swanson, testified at the probation 

revocation hearing. According to Swanson, Anderson reported to probation on 

November 27, 2012, and his scheduled release date from probation was 

2

 Insofar as Anderson’s argument on this issue is dependent on our agreeing with him on Issue Two, 

Anderson’s argument fails just as his argument on Issue Two fails.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2003 | January 30, 2020 Page 10 of 11

February 5, 2019. A condition of Anderson’s probation was that he not 

commit new offenses. In its second petition to revoke Anderson’s probation, 

the State alleged that he had committed new state-level offenses consisting of 

two Level 2 drug offenses and one Level 5 drug offense. The State further 

alleged that Anderson had also committed new federal firearms offenses. 

Neither the probable cause affidavits nor informations for any of the new 

offenses are included in the record on appeal.

[19] Swanson testified that, during that probationary period, Anderson was arrested 

on March 24, 2017, by the Michigan City Police Department on the three 

alleged drug offenses. However, Swanson did not testify as to when any of 

those three offenses were alleged to have occurred. Further, there is no 

limitations period for bringing Level 2 felony charges, and a Level 5 felony 

charge generally must be brought within five years of the commission of the 

offense. I.C. § 35-41-4-2. Thus, it is possible that each of those three offenses 

occurred prior to the commencement of Anderson’s probation in November of 

2012, while Anderson was on work release. 

[20] In the trial court, the State appears to have assumed that evidence of 

Anderson’s date of arrest was equivalent to the dates of the alleged offenses. 

But the two are not equivalent. Here, the dates of alleged offenses control, and 

a date of arrest, without more, is not sufficient to show that the new offenses 

were committed during the probationary period.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2003 | January 30, 2020 Page 11 of 11

[21] Nonetheless, the State admitted into evidence, without objection, certified 

documents from the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Indiana regarding the federal firearms offenses. According to those documents, 

“while [Anderson was] a county jail detainee on drug charges”—there is no 

dispute that this is a reference to Anderson’s detainment following his March 

24, 2017, arrest—officers learned from “a monitored phone call from” 

Anderson that he had “three firearms, a large capacity magazine . . . , and drugs 

packaged for sale in a locked lock box” in violation of federal law. Ex. Vol. at 

15. Anderson was then transferred to the jurisdiction of the federal court,

where he pleaded guilty to federal firearm offenses. The federal court sentenced 

Anderson for those offenses on August 2, 2018.

[22] Accordingly, the State presented sufficient evidence that Anderson committed 

the federal firearms offenses during his probationary period. Sometime after 

March 24, 2017, and prior to August 2, 2018, Anderson possessed and admitted 

to possessing firearms in violation of federal law. As Anderson’s violation of 

federal law occurred during his probation, we affirm the trial court’s revocation

of his probation.

[23] Affirmed.

Vaidik, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.