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 Dec 12 2014, 9:03 am
of establishing the defense of res
judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law
of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
DERICK W. STEELE GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Kokomo, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
MONIKA PREKOPA TALBOT
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JERRY HORTON, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 34A02-1405-CR-375
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE HOWARD SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable George A. Hopkins, Judge
Cause No. 34D04-1012-FC-174
December 12, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BARNES, Judge
Case Summary
Jerry Horton appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his
probation. We dismiss.
Issue
Horton raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court properly
revoked his probation after it declined his request for good time credit for time served on
in-home detention.
Facts
In December 2010, Horton was charged with Class C felony intimidation, Class D
felony criminal recklessness, Class D felony pointing a firearm, Class D felony
possession of marijuana, and Class B misdemeanor visiting a common nuisance. In
March 2011, Horton agreed to plead guilty to Class D felony criminal recklessness and
Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and the remaining charges were
dismissed. On the criminal recklessness charge, the plea agreement called for Horton to
be sentenced to three years, with two years suspended to in-home detention and one year
suspended to probation. On the marijuana charge, the plea agreement called for a one-
year sentence suspended to supervised probation. The sentences were to run
concurrently. On April 11, 2011, the trial court sentenced Horton in accordance with the
terms of the plea agreement.
On February 8, 2013, Horton was released from in-home detention and directed to
report to probation upon his release. Horton did not report to probation until August 23,
2013, and was told to report back for a scheduled check on August 28, 2013. Horton
2
failed to report for the scheduled check, and a petition to revoke his probation was filed.
Pursuant to an agreement, Horton admitted to the violation and his probation was
extended by the portion it had been tolled from September 9, 2013 to October 17, 2013.
On November 19, 2013, Horton again failed to report to probation as ordered, and
another petition to revoke his probation was filed. On March 28, 2014, Horton admitted
to the allegation. On May 16, 2014, the trial court revoked Horton’s probation and
ordered him to serve the balance of his suspended sentence. On June 5, 2014, the trial
court issued an amended sentencing order ordering him to serve the balance of his one-
year suspended sentence and awarding him credit for twenty-nine days actually served
and credit for an in-home detention overage of sixteen days. Horton now appeals.
Analysis
On appeal, Horton argues that he was wrongly denied good time credit for the 685
days he served on in-home detention from 2011 to 2013. Horton contends that, when the
petition to revoke his probation was filed, he had already served 1,418 days of a 1,095
sentence. He argues that he should be immediately released and that his sentence on the
probation revocation should be vacated.
The State responds by arguing that the issue is moot because Horton has already
served the sentence.
“[W]here the principal questions at issue cease to be of real
controversy between the parties, the errors assigned become
moot questions and this court will not retain jurisdiction to
decide them. Stated differently, when we are unable to
provide effective relief upon an issue, the issue is deemed
moot, and we will not reverse the trial court’s determination
where absolutely no change in the status quo will result.”
3
Bell v. State, 1 N.E.3d 190, 192 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Jones v. State, 847 N.E.2d
190, 200 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (citations and quotations omitted), trans. denied).
According to the State, the trial court reduced Horton’s one-year sentence by
twenty-nine days for time served, twenty-nine days for credit time, and sixteen days for
the in-home detention overage, a total of seventy-four days. Horton’s remaining sentence
was 291 days. When taking into account his Class I credit time status, Horton was
required to serve 145 days beginning on May 16, 2014. Thus, by the State’s calculation,
Horton was released on October 8, 2014. Because Horton has not filed a reply brief
responding to this argument, we have no reason to believe that the State’s calculation is
incorrect or that Horton has not served the balance of his sentence. As such, his
challenge to the sentence imposed following the revocation of his probation is moot, and
we dismiss his appeal.
Conclusion
Because Horton has served his sentence, his challenge to the sentence imposed
upon the revocation of his probation is moot. We dismiss.
Dismissed.
MAY, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
4