Court Opinion

ID: 9773475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:47:14.537559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:54.214431
License: Public Domain

RILEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Crider waived his claim that he was illegally sentenced. As the majority notes, consecutive habitual offender enhancements are not authorized by statute and are therefore improper. See Breaston v. State, 907 N.E.2d 992 (Ind.2009). The State argues, and the majority agrees, however, that Crider waived his argument that his sentence was illegal by voluntarily entering into a plea agreement with the knowledge that the trial court could order his habitual offender sentences to run consecutively.
We acknowledge that our supreme court has upheld illegal sentences where a defendant has entered into a plea agreement calling for an illegal sentence and then benefitted from that sentence. See, e.g., Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35, 40 (Ind.2004). As the Lee court explained, “[Defendants who plead guilty to achieve favorable outcomes give up a plethora of substantive claims and procedural rights, such as challenges to convictions that would otherwise constitute double jeopardy. Striking a favorable bargain including a consecutive sentence the court might otherwise not have the ability to impose falls within this category.” Id. (quoting Davis v. State, 771 N.E.2d 647, n. 4 (Ind.2002)). The distinguishing factor between Lee and the instant case is that Crider did not agree to the trial court’s illegal sentence through a plea agreement. As the majority notes, the original draft of the plea agreement provided that the habitual offender enhancements would be served concurrently, yet that provision was crossed out and initialed by Crider and his counsel in the final version. Thus, the plea agreement did not contain any reference to whether the sentence would be served concurrently or consecutively.
*678The majority argues that because the original draft of the plea contained this provision of concurrent habitual offender enhancements, and because Crider challenged the trial court’s authority to order his sentences to be served consecutively during his sentencing hearing, Crider had knowledge that the trial court might order the sentences served consecutively. However, knowledge is not equivalent to consent, and the evidence of Crider’s arguments illustrates that the opposite is true — Crider did not consent to the illegal sentence. Thus, because Crider did not consent to the illegal sentence in his plea agreement, he cannot be said to have ben-efitted from that sentence as a result of his agreement. Accordingly, I would remand to the trial court with instructions to modify Crider’s sentence.