Court Opinion

ID: 9529283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:49:29.80558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:43.683279
License: Public Domain

KIRSCH, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I believe the trial court acted within its discretion in imposing a ten-year sentence suspended to probation. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
First, the sentence was within the plea agreement. Eaton entered into a plea agreement by which a Class A felony charge for manufacturing methamphetamine was dismissed, and it was agreed that he would not be sentenced to more than ten years.
Second, having served on the panel which decided Beck v. State, 790 N.E.2d 520 (Ind.App., 2003), I continue to believe that in the appellate review of sentencing decisions we should look at the total sentence actually imposed (including whether some or all of it was suspended or suspended to probation) and not simply at the number of years of the sentence. I believe it is counter-intuitive to say that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a suspended ten-year sentence when it would have been within its discretion to order an executed nine-year sentence. Would the appellant here actually prefer a reduced executed sentence to a presumptive suspended sentence? A year is, indeed, a year, but a suspended sentence is not the same as an executed sentence, and time spent on work release through a community corrections program is not the same as time spent in a state prison.
I would affirm the trial court in all respects.