Court Opinion

ID: 9742507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:15:13.858172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:33.017493
License: Public Domain

MAY, Judge,
dissenting.
Because I believe the court correctly determined it lacked authority to modify Owens’ sentence, I must respectfully dissent.
Owens’ plea agreement explicitly provides: “nothing in this agreement shall foreclose the State of Indiana from objecting to any modification of sentence.” (App. at 13.) Accordingly, I believe the trial court cannot modify Owens’ sentence until the State of Indiana declines to object to one of her motions.
Neither would I find the “consents and approves” provision created ambiguity that permits us to ignore that explicit language in the plea agreement. The majority seems to believe the plea agreement cannot mean what it says because such a reading would indicate the State “did not forfeit something.” (Op. at 67.) I disagree.
It is not uncommon for plea agreements to contain a defendant’s waiver of his or her right to petition for modification of sentence. See, e.g., Schippers v. State, 622 N.E.2d 993, 994 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (“The agreement also contained an express waiver by Schippers of his right to ‘request, file motion for, or be considered for modification of sentence, under I.C. 35-38-1-17.’ ”). See also Knight v. State, No. 33A01-0704-PC-165, 875 N.E.2d 829 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (“The Defendant specifically agrees and understands that an additional term of his agreement is that he waives any and all rights to file a petition for modification of sentence to request a change of placement that he/she may have pursuant to I.C. 35-38-l-17(b).”); Turley v. State, No. 33A04-0606-CR-309, 858 N.E.2d 694 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (Plea agreement provided: “The Defendant specifically agrees and understands that an additional term of this agreement is that he waives any and all rights to file a petition for modification of sentence to request a change of placement that he may have pursuant to I.C. 35-38-1-17(b).”). Cf. Cole v. State, 850 N.E.2d 417, 418 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (Plea explicitly noted it “was made ‘without a waiver of any rights to modify or appeal the sentence.... ’ ”). Accordingly, without details of the plea negotiations, we can not know the State did not forfeit something in exchange for this provision in the plea agreement.
Moreover, as a matter of law, the State did forfeit something when it “consent[ed] and approv[ed]” to Owens’ filing motions to modify under Ind.Code § 35-38-1-17. When a plea agreement calls for the court to impose a specific sentence, the court may not subsequently alter the sentence pursuant to a defendant’s motion “unless the agreement contained a specific reservation of such authority for the trial judge.” Pannarale v. State, 638 N.E.2d 1247, 1248 (Ind.1994) (citing State ex rel. Goldsmith v. Superior Court, 275 Ind. 545, 551-52, 419 N.E.2d 109, 114 (1981)). Owens’ plea agreement provided: “The Court will sentence the Defendant to forty (40) years in the Indiana Department of Corrections [sic].” (Appellant’s App. at 13.) *69Owens thereby forfeited her right to have the trial court consider a subsequent motion to modify under Ind.Code § 35-38-1-17. See Robinett v. State, 798 N.E.2d 537, 540 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (because defendant agreed to specific term of years in agreement, court was without authority to modify the sentence), trans. denied 812 N.E.2d 793 (Ind.2004). The “consents and approves” provision of the plea agreement restored Owens’ right to petition for modification under I.C. 35-38-1-17. Therefore, I believe the majority erroneously decided the State “did not forfeit something,” (op. at 67), and incorrectly asserts its reading is “[t]he only sensible interpretation of’ the plea agreement. (Id.)
Because I believe the trial court correctly found it had no authority to modify Owens’ sentence from the forty years provided by the plea agreement unless the prosecutor decided not to object to Owens’ motion, I would affirm.