Court Opinion

ID: 9744021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:52:17.443713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:46.231605
License: Public Domain

CONOVER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. It is apparent from the majority’s opinion the trial court’s order was the direct result of the written plea agreement entered into between Ratliff and the State. The trial court, in essence, merely entered of record the agreement contained therein.
In that factual posture, I believe the claimed error in not furnishing him with a written copy of the terms of his probation was at worst, harmless. The notice function intended by IC 35-38-2-2(b) was actually fulfilled here, as it was in Kerrigan v. State (1989), Ind.App., 540 N.E.2d 1251. The written plea agreement was an appropriate written substitute for the required written statement of conditions. Although the substitute in Kerrigan was the trial court’s comprehensive oral advisement, I believe the comprehensive written plea agreement fulfilled Kerrigan’s four requirements and rendered any error in this regard harmless.
I would affirm the trial court in all things.