Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before
any court except for the purpose of Jan 10 2014, 9:18 am
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
MATTHEW K. HAGENBUSH GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Lawrenceburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
ANDREW FALK
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JOSHUA BATCHELOR, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 15A01-1306-CR-259
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE DEARBORN SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable James D. Humphrey, Special Judge
Cause No. 15D01-0205-FB-11
January 10, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BRADFORD, Judge
CASE SUMMARY
Appellant-Defendant Joshua Batchelor pled guilty to three counts of burglary and
received an aggregate sentence of twenty years, ten years of which were suspended to
probation. Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana subsequently filed a notice of probation
violation. At the hearing on the notice, Batchelor agreed to withdraw and dismiss all credit
time claims with prejudice as part of a probation revocation agreement reached with the
State. Batchelor later filed a number of motions for credit time, the denials of three of which
form the bases for his appeal. Concluding that Batchelor waived these claims as part of his
probation revocation agreement, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 8, 2002, Batchelor pled guilty to three counts of burglary, two Class B
felonies and one Class C felony, and received an aggregate sentence of twenty years, ten
years of which were suspended to probation. On October 18, 2011, the State filed a notice of
probation violation. On January 17, 2013, the trial court held a hearing on the notice of
probation violation. At the hearing, Batchelor admitted to violating the terms of his
probation, and the parties discussed an agreement they had entered into regarding disposition.
At one point, the trial court asked, “Are you agreeing…is it the parties’ agreement I should
say that any other credit time issues regarding 15D01-0205-FB-011 are withdrawn with
prejudice…is that the agreement?” Tr. p. 44. The prosecutor, Batchelor, and Batchelor’s
trial counsel all replied, “Yes, sir.” Tr. p. 44. The trial court clarified, saying, “I will show as
part of this global agreement that any previous issues raised regarding credit time in Cause
2
No. FB-011 are withdrawn with prejudice[.]” Tr. p. 45. The trial court accepted the parties’
agreement and ordered that four years and 243 days of Batchelor’s previously suspended
sentenced be executed. On April 4, 2013, Batchelor filed three motions to correct erroneous
sentence, all of which alleged erroneous denial of credit time. On May 6, 2013, the trial
court denied all three of Batchelor’s motions to correct erroneous sentence.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Batchelor concedes that he agreed to withdraw and dismiss all credit time issues with
prejudice as part of his probation revocation agreement but requests that we consider the
significant lengths to which he has gone to point out alleged errors in his sentence. In our
view, however, Batchelor’s agreement regarding his probation revocation is analogous to a
plea agreement, and it is well-settled that “a plea agreement is a contract, ‘an explicit
agreement between the State and defendant,’ which, if accepted by the trial court, is binding
upon all parties.” Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134, 1144 (Ind. 2013) (citation omitted).
Batchelor cannot now raise issues regarding the allegedly erroneous denial of credit time in
this cause number.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
MATHIAS, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
3