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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT : ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE : DARREN BEDWELL GREGORY F. ZOELLER Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana MICHAEL GENE WORDEN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana


## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

CLAUDE F. HUDSON , ) ) Appellant

- Defendant , ) ) vs. ) No. 84A01

- 1305

- CR

- 197 ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee

- Plaintiff

. )

APPEAL FROM THE VIGO SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Michael J. Lewis , Judge Cause No. 84D06

- 1204

- FB

- 1187

May 7, 2014 MEMORANDUM DECISION

– NOT FOR PUBLICATION RILEY, Judge2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant

- Defendant, Claude Hudson ( Hudson ), appeals the denial of his credit time.

We reverse and remand. 1

ISSUE

Hudson raises one issue on appeal which we r estate as follows: Whether the trial
court abused its discretion when it denied Hudson credit time for time spent in a mental health facility

.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On April 7, 2012, Joshua Mast (Mast) returne d home to find Hudson inside his home, standing at the foot of his bed wearing his jacket. Mast asked Hudson why he was at his house , and Hudson told Mast that had knocked and nobody answered so he thought it was fine to go in. Mast then asked Hudson to leave. Hudson left wearing Mast’s jacket.

On April 12 , 201 2 , the State filed an Information charging Hudson with Count I, burglary, a Class B felony, Ind. Code § 35

– 43

- 2

- 1(b)(i) , and Count II, theft, a class D felony, I. C

. § 35

– 43

- 4

- 2. On M ay 2, 2012, Hudson requested for an evaluation to determine whether he is competent to stand trial. On September 26, 2012, at the competency hearing, the trial court ordered Hudson to be committed to the Department of

1 We recognize that the State filed a verified motion for remand, and we accordingly grant their motion in this opinion.3

Mental Health Family and Social Servi ces Administration. On October 15, 2012, Hudson was transported from the Vigo County Jail to the Logansport State Hospital ( Hospital ) . On December 20 , 2012 , Hudson was certified competent and on December 27, 2012, the trial
court ordered him transported back to jail . On February 25, 2013 , a jury was empaneled and sworn in . On February 26 , 201 3 , the jury found Hudson guilty as charged on both
C ount s . On April 10, 2013 , the trial court sentenced Hudson to six years executed in the Indiana De partment of Correction. The trial court gave Hudson 295 days of credit time on
Count I and dismissed Count II. The credit time awarded for Count I did not include the period from October 15, 2012 , to December 2 7 , 2012 , when Hudson was confined at the Hospital for mental evaluation

. (Appellant’s App. p. 164). Hudson now appeal s . Additional facts will be provide d as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION Hudson contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to give him credit time for the time he was confined at the Hospital from October 15, 2012 to December
2 7 , 2012

. We begin by noting that the standard for review of a trial court’ s sent encing decision is an abuse of discretion. Groves v. State, 823 N.E.2d 1229 , 1231 (Ind. Ct. App. 200 5)

. The trial court abuses its discretion if its “ decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances .” Id

. Indiana law provides that a person earns “ one (1) day of credit time for each day the person is imprisoned for a crime or confined awaiting trial or sentencing. ” See I

. C

. § 35

–4

50

– 6

– 3(a). “[ C ] onfinement in this context includes time a criminal defendant spends in a mental health facility as a pa rt of the criminal proceedings.” State v

. Davis 898 N.E. 2d 281,289 (Ind. 2008) (quoting Wilson v. State , 679 N.E.2d 1333, 1336 (Ind. Ct. App.1997).

The State concurs with Hudson that the trial court erre d for not awarding credit to Hudson f r om October 15, 2012 to December 28, 2012 when he was confined at the Hospital for mental evaluation

. The record shows that the trial court awarded a total of 2 95 days of
credit time. The breakdown for the credit time as per the abstract of the judgment was as follows: 192 days from April, 7, 2012 , the day Hudson was arrested , to October 15, 2012 , when he was transported to the Hospital ; 90 days from December 28, 2012 to March 2 7 , 2013 , spent at the jail where Hudson was a waiting the trial ; and lastly, 13 days from March
2 8 , 2013 to April 9, 2013 , spent at the jail where Hudson was awaiting sentencing

. Based on this breakdown, w e find that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to include the period from October 15, 2012 to December 2 7 , 2012 , when Hudson was confined at the Hospital as credit time.

CONCLUSION Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court with instructions to award Hudson credit time from October 15, 2012 to December 2 7 , 2012 when he was confined at the Hospital

.
We reverse and remand.
VAIDIK, C. J. and MAY, J. concur