Court Opinion

ID: 9707202
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:05:05.53956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:29.109179
License: Public Domain

RUCKER, Judge,
concurring.
I fully concur with the majority. I write separately to address Pannarale's contention that once a defendant satisfies all of the requirements set forth in Ind.Code § 35-838 1-23(a)(1) through (a)(5) the trial court is bound to reduce the sentence. According to Pannarale, the Legislature enacted the foregoing statute to alleviate overcrowded prisons and thus "if a prisoner melets] all the criteria demanded by the Legislature, the motion should be granted, regardless of the nature of the crime." Brief of Appellant at 12. Pannarale is mistaken.
First, judicial interpretation of a statute is necessary where the statutory language is unclear or ambiguous. Bowman v. State (1979), Ind.App., 398 N.E.2d 1306, 1308. In that instance the reviewing court is called upon to construe the statute and must search for legislative intent. Horne v. State (1991), Ind.App., 572 N.E.2d 1333, trans. denied. Here, Ind.Code § 35-38-1-23 is clear and straightforward. Thus, contrary to Panna-rale's assertion, we need not explore the rationale underlying the statute's enactment. Second, even if a defendant satisfies all of the *832requirements set forth in the statute, the trial court is not obligated to grant a petition to reduce sentence. Rather, in its discretion the trial court "may reduce the sentence of the person by up to two (2) years" provided it is "in the best interest of justice." Id. Further, the petition may be granted or denied without a hearing. Id.
In this case the majority has determined that unless a plea agreement contains a specific reservation of the court's authority to grant a reduction under Ind.Code § 385-38-1-23, the court may not grant the reduction. I agree. I add, however, that even if such a reservation were contained in the plea agreement, the court nonetheless is not bound to grant the reduction. While the reservation clause would remove the barrier imposed by Thompson v. State (1993), Ind.App., 617 N.E.2d 576, trans. denied and Schippers v. State (1993), Ind.App., 622 N.E.2d 993, the trial court must still be convinced a sentence reduction would be in the best interest of justice. If it is not so convinced, then the petition may be denied.