Jan 23 2015, 9:56 am
FOR PUBLICATION
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
R. PATRICK MAGRATH GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Attorney General of Indiana
Madison, Indiana
ERIC P. BABBS
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JEROME PERRY, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 39A05-1407-CR-346
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Alison T. Frazier, Judge
Cause No. 39D01-1309-FD-900
January 23, 2015
OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION
CRONE, Judge
Case Summary
Jerome Perry appeals the three years of home detention imposed by the trial court
following his conviction for class D felony receiving stolen goods. Perry asserts that the trial
court’s sentence does not accord with Indiana law and that his sentence should have been six
months. Finding that the trial court properly applied the law in sentencing Perry, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
Perry was charged with class D felony receiving stolen property and class A
misdemeanor conversion. In June 2014, he pled guilty to the felony charge, and the
misdemeanor charge was dismissed. The trial court sentenced him to three years at the
Indiana Department of Correction with credit for time served and the remainder of the
sentence to be served on home detention as a direct placement in community corrections.
Perry now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
Perry argues that the trial court did not follow statutory law in sentencing him to three
years’ home detention and that the maximum sentence for home detention should have been
six months. Perry’s argument is based on the premise that he was sentenced to home
detention as a condition of probation. See Ind. Code § 35-38-2.5-5 (stating that a court may
order home detention as condition of probation but that time actually spent in home detention
must not exceed minimum term of imprisonment for felony committed); Ind. Code § 35-50-
2-7 (stating that minimum sentence for class D felony is six months). He was not. Instead,
the trial court ordered home detention as a direct placement in community corrections
2
pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-38-2.6-3.
Perry asserts that there is no legal distinction between the use of home detention as a
condition of probation and the use of home detention as a direct placement in community
corrections. In support of his argument, Perry cites Stith v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1266 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2002), in which another panel of this Court pointed out that the General Assembly
“removed the statutory distinction between probation-based home detention and community
corrections-based home detention[.]” Id. at 1268. But that distinction related to credit time
and not to the maximum length of home detention. Therefore, Stith is inapplicable.
Perry also notes that Indiana Code Section 35-38-2.6-4.5 provides, “If a court places a
person on home detention as part of a community corrections program, the placement must
comply with all applicable provisions in IC 35-38-2.5.” (Emphasis added.) Indiana Code
Section 35-38-2.5-5 is entitled “Home detention as condition of probation” and therefore on
its face is inapplicable to home detention as a direct placement in community corrections.
This conclusion is further supported by the fact that Indiana Code Section 35-38-2.5-5
contains credit-time provisions that relate specifically to home detention as a condition of
probation and that Indiana Code Section 35-38-2.6-6 contains credit-time provisions that
relate specifically to home detention as a direct placement in community corrections. Thus,
Perry’s home detention was not subject to the limit set forth in Indiana Code Section 35-38-
2.5-5.
3
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court correctly applied the law in
sentencing Perry to three years’ home detention.1 Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
FRIEDLANDER, J., and KIRSCH, J., concur.
1
Perry does not claim that his sentence is inappropriate pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).
4