FILED
Jan 11 2018, 7:37 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jessica R. Merino Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Merino Law Firm, PC Attorney General
Goshen, Indiana
Ellen H. Meilaender
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Alberto Baiza Rodriguez, January 11, 2018
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A03-1704-CR-724
v. Appeal from the Elkhart Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable David C.
Appellee-Respondent Bonfiglio, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
20D06-1503-F6-264
Crone, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Alberto Baiza Rodriguez appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to modify
his sentence, which was imposed pursuant to a written plea agreement
containing a fixed sentence of seventy-two months executed on work release.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1704-CR-724 | January 11, 2018 Page 1 of 16
Rodriguez argues that modification of his sentence is permissible under Indiana
Code Section 35-38-1-17(l), which provides that a person may not waive the
right to sentence modification as part of a plea agreement. We agree and
therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Based on an incident that occurred on March 11, 2015, the State charged
Rodriguez with class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated (“OWI”),
level 6 felony OWI with a prior conviction, class C misdemeanor operating a
vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent of .08 or more, and with being
a habitual vehicular substance offender (“HVSO”).
[3] On January 6, 2016, pursuant to a written plea agreement, Rodriguez agreed to
plead guilty to the OWI charges and the HVSO allegation. The plea agreement
specified that Rodriguez would serve thirty months for the OWI convictions
and an additional forty-two months for the HVSO adjudication in the
Department of Correction, all to be executed on Elkhart County Work Release.
The agreement further provided that the State would agree to dismiss the class
C misdemeanor charge and not to file additional charges arising out of the
incident. The trial court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Rodriguez
according to its terms. Rodriguez began serving his sentence on January 20,
2016.
[4] On January 12, 2017, Rodriguez filed a motion to modify his sentence, alleging
that his work release placement had caused an undue hardship on his son and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1704-CR-724 | January 11, 2018 Page 2 of 16
father and that Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-17(e) permitted the trial court to
modify his remaining sentence from work release to home detention. Section
35-38-1-17(e) states,
At any time after:
(1) a convicted person begins serving the person’s sentence; and
(2) the court obtains a report from the department of correction
concerning the convicted person’s conduct while imprisoned;
the court may reduce or suspend the sentence and impose a
sentence that the court was authorized to impose at the time of
sentencing. The court must incorporate its reasons in the record.
Rodriguez asked the trial court to order a report from Elkhart County Work
Release and set the matter for hearing.
[5] The trial court held a hearing on Rodriguez’s motion and acknowledged that
his “report from the Work Release [was] very, very good, very outstanding.”
Tr. Vol. 2 at 7. The court took the matter under advisement and issued an
order concluding that it did “not have the authority to modify the sentence
because the court accepted the parties’ plea agreement which requires the
defendant to serve the sentence in Work Release.” 1 The court referenced
1
A handwritten notation on the plea agreement states, “Agreed all time in work release no discretion to
change.” Appellant’s Ap. at 13. Unlike other handwritten notations on the document, this one is not
initialed by Rodriguez as an indication that he understood it. The sentencing order states that Rodriguez is
to be placed “in ECCC [Elkhart County Community Corrections] WORK RELEASE ONLY” and that
“ECCC has NO discretion to change” his placement. Id. at 17. The transcript of the guilty plea hearing is
not in the record before us, so there is no indisputable evidence that Rodriguez agreed either verbally or in
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1704-CR-724 | January 11, 2018 Page 3 of 16
Indiana Code Section 35-35-3-3(e), which states, “If the court accepts a plea
agreement, it shall be bound by its terms.” The court also quoted Indiana Code
Section 35-38-1-17(l), which states,
A person may not waive the right to sentence modification under
this section as part of a plea agreement. Any purported waiver of
the right to sentence modification under this section in a plea
agreement is invalid and unenforceable as against public policy.
This subsection does not prohibit the finding of a waiver of the right to
sentence modification for any other reason, including failure to
comply with the provisions of this section[, which limit the
number of times a person may file a petition for sentence
modification without the consent of the prosecuting attorney].
(Emphasis altered.) The court concluded that the italicized phrase “applies to
the specific terms of a plea agreement that the court has accepted[,]” and thus
“entering into a binding plea agreement waives the right to seek or receive a
modification of sentence.”
[6] Rodriguez now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Rodriguez contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to modify
his sentence. We review such rulings for an abuse of discretion. Carr v. State,
33 N.E.3d 358, 358 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. “The trial court abuses
writing that his placement could not be changed, and the sentencing order does not prohibit the trial court
from changing his placement.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1704-CR-724 | January 11, 2018 Page 4 of 16
its discretion by ruling in a way clearly against the logic and effect of the facts
and circumstances before it, or by misinterpreting the law.” Perryman v. State,
80 N.E.3d 234, 241 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). To the extent that our analysis hinges
on interpreting statutes, we note that “statutory interpretation is a question of
law and determinations in that regard are subject to de novo appellate review.”
Higgins v. State, 855 N.E.2d 338, 341 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “When construing a
statute our primary goal is to ascertain the legislature’s intent. To discern that
intent, we look first to the statutory language itself and give effect to the plain
and ordinary meaning of statutory terms.” Suggs v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1190, 1193
(Ind. 2016) (citation omitted). “Statutes relating to the same subject matter are
in pari materia (on the same subject) and should be construed together so as to
produce a harmonious statutory scheme.” Jones v. State, 928 N.E.2d 285, 287
(Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “‘As a general rule, there is a presumption that the
Legislature in enacting a particular piece of legislation has in mind existing
statutes covering the same subject.’” Simmons v. State, 773 N.E.2d 823, 826
(Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (quoting Citizens Action Coalition of Ind. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n
of Ind., 425 N.E.2d 178, 184 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981)), trans. denied. “[W]e will not
read into the statute that which is not the expressed intent of the legislature. As
such, it is just as important to recognize what the statute does not say as it is to
recognize what it does say.” N.D.F. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 1085, 1088 (Ind. 2002)
(citation omitted).
[8] It is hornbook law that a plea agreement is contractual in nature, binding both
the defendant and the State. E.g., St. Clair v. State, 901 N.E.2d 490, 492 (Ind.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1704-CR-724 | January 11, 2018 Page 5 of 16
2009). “Bargaining between the State and a pleading defendant will have
produced for court consideration an agreement that either specifies a precise
penalty or leaves some or all of the specifics to the judgment of the trial court.”
Id. at 493. “[I]t is up to the trial court to accept or reject the plea agreement as
filed.” Badger v. State, 637 N.E.2d 800, 802 (Ind. 1994). As noted above, once a
trial court accepts a plea agreement, it is bound by its terms. Ind. Code § 35-35-
3-3(e).
[9] In years past, the legislature placed significant limitations on a trial court’s
authority to modify a sentence imposed after a trial. A trial court could reduce
or suspend a defendant’s sentence within the first three hundred sixty-five days
(commonly known as “shock probation”), but after that point most reductions
or suspensions were subject to approval of the prosecuting attorney. See Ind.
Code § 35-38-1-17 (formerly 35-38-1-23) (historical statutes). With respect to
plea agreements containing a fixed sentence, our supreme court held as follows:
Once it has accepted a plea agreement recommending a specific
sentence, … the terms of the agreement constrain the discretion
the court would otherwise employ in sentencing. Even after a
sentence has been imposed pursuant to a plea agreement
containing a recommendation of a specific term of years, that
sentence may not be altered upon subsequent motion, such as
under Ind. Code § 35-38-1-23 for “shock probation,” unless the
agreement contained a specific reservation of such authority for
the trial judge. [State ex rel. Goldsmith v. Marion Cty. Super. Ct., 275
Ind. 545, 551-52, 419 N.E.2d 109, 114 (1981)].
Goldsmith and its progeny each uphold the principle that a deal is
a deal. Once it has accepted a plea agreement, the sentencing
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1704-CR-724 | January 11, 2018 Page 6 of 16
court possesses only that degree of discretion provided in the plea
agreement with regard to imposing an initial sentence or altering
it later.
Pannarale v. State, 638 N.E.2d 1247, 1248 (Ind. 1994).2
[10] Since 2014, however, the legislature has gradually relaxed the restrictions on
sentence modification, allowing trial courts to reduce or suspend sentences for
nonviolent offenders “[a]t any time” without prosecutorial approval in certain
circumstances. Ind. Code § 35-38-1-17(e), -(j).3 The legislature also added what
is now Section 35-38-1-17(l), which, as mentioned above, provides that “[a]
person may not waive the right to sentence modification under this section as
part of a plea agreement” and that “[a]ny purported waiver of the right to
sentence modification under this section in a plea agreement is invalid and
unenforceable as against public policy.” Section 35-38-1-17(l) also provides that
it “does not prohibit the finding of a waiver of the right to sentence
modification for any other reason, including failure to comply with the
provisions” of the statute.
2
See also Robinett v. State, 798 N.E.2d 537, 539-40 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (denying motion to modify fixed
sentence imposed pursuant to plea agreement based on Pannarale), trans. denied (2004). The trial court in this
case cited both Pannarale and Robinett in its order denying Rodriguez’s motion to modify.
3
Section 35-38-1-17(j) provides that a nonviolent offender “may file a petition for sentence modification …
(1) not more than one (1) time in any three hundred sixty-five (365) day period; and (2) a maximum of two
(2) times during any consecutive period of incarceration; without the consent of the prosecuting attorney.”
Section 35-38-1-17(k) provides that a violent offender may file one petition for sentence modification without
the consent of the prosecuting attorney within three hundred sixty-five days from the date of sentencing;
thereafter, the offender “may not file a petition for sentence modification without the consent of the
prosecuting attorney.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1704-CR-724 | January 11, 2018 Page 7 of 16
[11] In this case, Rodriguez’s plea agreement contained a specific reservation of
authority for the trial court to modify his sentence, but only in the event that he
was incarcerated, which he was not. See Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 14 (“In the
event [Rodriguez] is incarcerated, he specifically reserves the right to request a
modification of sentence; however, the State is not bound to consent to
jurisdiction therefore [sic.].”). The trial court essentially concluded that by
entering into a plea agreement with a fixed sentence to be served on work
release, Rodriguez waived the right to modification of that sentence. But that is
precisely what Section 35-38-1-17(l) prohibits in no uncertain terms as a
violation of public policy; it does not distinguish between implicit or explicit
waivers, and we may not read such a distinction into the statute. N.D.F., 775
N.E.2d at 1088.
[12] The State argues,
In plea bargains, the State is often agreeing to dismiss other
(often, more serious) charges or to forego filing additional
charges in exchange for the certainty of a definite sentence or
definite limits on sentencing options that ensure the defendant
will receive no less than a certain sentence. If that fixed sentence
can be modified at any time, or if the negotiated limits on
sentencing discretion can be ignored at any time, then the
agreement is purely illusory, and the State is not receiving the
benefit for which it bargained. The State will be unwilling to
enter into plea agreements if they will not be enforced.
Appellee’s Br. at 12. We acknowledge the State’s concern, but as another panel
of this Court stated in response to a similar argument in a recent case,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1704-CR-724 | January 11, 2018 Page 8 of 16
the statute says what it says, and we are bound to interpret and
apply statutes in a way that fulfills the legislature’s intent. Unless
and until the General Assembly clarifies the statute at issue, it
clearly and unambiguous states that offenders “may not waive
the right to sentence modification … as part of a plea
agreement.”
State v. Stafford, 86 N.E.3d 190, 193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Ind. Code §
35-38-1-17(l)), trans. granted.4
[13] The State also points to Section 35-35-3-3(e), which provides that a trial court
“shall be bound” by the terms of a plea agreement that it accepts, and argues
that if the legislature “had intended to change this law and allow modifications
of fixed-sentence pleas, it would have said so directly.” Appellee’s Br. at 13-14.
We think that the legislature said so directly in Section 35-38-1-17(l). The State
also mentions Section 35-38-1-17(e), which states that a court “may reduce or
suspend [a] sentence and impose a sentence that the court was authorized to
impose at the time of sentencing”; the State contends that “in a case involving a
fixed-sentence plea, the only sentence that the court ‘was authorized to impose
at the time of sentencing’ is the precise sentence provided for in the plea
4
The Stafford court also stated,
It is apparent that, by relaxing the rules regarding sentence modification, our General Assembly
was guided by Article I, Section 18, of the Indiana Constitution, which provides that “[t]he
penal code shall be founded on the principles of reformation, and not of vindictive justice.” In
keeping with this philosophy is the legislature’s recognition of the public policy against a
purported waiver in a plea agreement of a defendant’s ability to seek sentence modification.
86 N.E.3d at 192. Our supreme court granted the State’s petition to transfer on December 19, 2017, and has
not yet issued an opinion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1704-CR-724 | January 11, 2018 Page 9 of 16
agreement.” Appellee’s Br. at 11. As the Stafford court said, “[w]e cannot agree
with the State’s tortured interpretation of the plain statutory language.” 86
N.E.3d at 193.
[A]s to what sentence the trial court is “authorized” to impose at
the time of sentencing, that authorization is bound not only by
the language of the plea agreement but also by the law. And the
General Assembly has quite clearly stated that, as of July 2014,
“[a] person may not waive the right to sentence modification
under this section as part of a plea agreement.” I.C. § 35-38-1-
17(l). Therefore, following the enactment of these statutory
amendments, the legislature has declared that trial courts are not
authorized to impose a sentence that purports to waive the
defendant’s right to a later modification.
Id.
[14] Based on the foregoing, we believe that Sections 35-35-3-3(e), 35-38-1-17(e),
and 35-38-1-17(l) may be harmonized to preserve a defendant’s right to
modification of a fixed sentence imposed under a plea agreement. We
respectfully disagree with the dissent’s interpretation of these statutes, which
would effectively render Section 35-38-1-17(l) a nullity. If the legislature
disagrees with our interpretation of Section 35-38-1-17(l), then it may clarify the
statute accordingly. We hold that modification of Rodriguez’s sentence is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1704-CR-724 | January 11, 2018 Page 10 of 16
permissible under Section 35-38-1-17(l), and therefore we reverse and remand
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.5
[15] Reversed and remanded.
Mathias, J., concurs.
Rucker, S.J., dissents with opinion.
5
After this appeal was fully briefed, the State submitted a notice of additional authority citing State v.
Lamaster, 84 N.E.3d 630 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. not sought. In that case, another panel of this Court relied
in part on Section 35-38-1-17(e) in holding that the trial court erred in granting Lamaster’s petition to modify
his fixed sentence imposed under a plea agreement. We find Lamaster unpersuasive, however, because it
does not even mention Section 35-38-1-17(l).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1704-CR-724 | January 11, 2018 Page 11 of 16
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jessica R. Merino Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Merino Law Firm, PC Attorney General
Goshen, Indiana
Ellen H. Meilaender
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Alberto Baiza Rodriguez, January 11, 2018
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A03-1704-CR-724
v. Appeal from the Elkhart Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable David C.
Appellee-Respondent Bonfiglio, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
20D06-1503-F6-264
Rucker, Senior Judge, dissenting.
[16] I agree with the majority that “Sections 35-35-3-3 (e) . . . and 35-38-1-17 (l) may
be harmonized. . . .” Slip op. at 10. But I reach a much different conclusion on
how these harmonized provisions work together. Therefore, I respectfully
dissent.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1704-CR-724 | January 11, 2018 Page 12 of 16
[17] Enacted in 1980, Indiana Code Section 35-35-3-3 (e) dictates “[i]f the court
accepts a plea agreement, it shall be bound by its terms.” In like fashion, our
courts have long declared that a “plea agreement is contractual in nature,
binding the defendant, the state and the trial court.” Pannarale v. State, 638
N.E.2d 1247, 1248 (Ind. 1994) (citing State ex rel Goldsmith v. Superior Court, 419
N.E.2d 109, 114 (Ind.1981)). And “although not a party to the agreement,
once the court accepts a plea agreement, it is bound by the terms of that
agreement.” Blackburn v. State, 493 N.E.2d 437, 439 (Ind. 1986). The question
presented is whether Indiana Code section 35-35-3-3(e) still remains in full force
and effect in light of subsequent legislative enactments.
[18] Effective July 1, 2014, as part of a comprehensive revision to the Indiana
criminal code, the Legislature amended Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-17. Prior
to the revision the statute was largely focused on prosecutorial approval to the
modification of a sentence. See Manley v. State, 868 N.E.2d 1175 (Ind. Ct. App.
2007); Schweitzer v. State, 700 N.E.2d 488 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). However, the
Legislature shifted focus and among other things enacted a wholly new
paragraph “(l)” which provides in relevant part:
A person may not waive the right to sentence modification under this section
as part of a plea agreement. Any purported waiver of the right to
sentence modification under this section in a plea agreement is
invalid and unenforceable as against public policy. This subsection
does not prohibit the finding of a waiver of the right to sentence modification
for any other reason, including failure to comply with the provisions
of this section.
Ind. Code § 35-38-1-17 (l) (emphasis added).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1704-CR-724 | January 11, 2018 Page 13 of 16
[19] In construing statutes, our primary goal is to determine and give effect to the
intent of the legislature. Moryl v. Ranone, 4 N.E.3d 1133, 1137 (Ind. 2014).
When two statutes on the same subject must be construed together, a court
should attempt to give effect to both and must attempt to harmonize any
inconsistencies or conflicts before applying any other rule of statutory
construction. Id. “As a general rule, there is a presumption that the Legislature
in enacting a particular piece of legislation has in mind existing statutes
covering the same subject.” Simmons v. State, 773 N.E.2d 823, 826 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2002). “When two statutes or two sets of statutes are apparently
inconsistent in some respects, and yet can be rationalized to give effect to both,
then it is our duty to do so. It is only when there is irreconcilable conflict that
we can interpret the legislative intent to be that one statute gives way to the
other.” Wright v. Gettinger, 428 N.E.2d 1212, 1219 (Ind. 1981).
[20] In this case both Indiana Code section 35-35-3-3(e) and Indiana Code section
35-38-1-17(l) address the same subject – plea agreements. And, at first blush,
they appear to be inconsistent – the earlier statute declaring on the one hand
that the court is bound by the terms of a plea agreement if the court accepts the
agreement, while the later statute on the other hand declares a person may not
waive the right to sentence modification as part of a plea agreement. However,
closer examination reveals the two statutes may be harmonized. In particular,
the third sentence of Indiana Code section 35-38-1-17(l) makes clear that the
statute “does not prohibit the finding of waiver of the right to sentence
modification for any other reason.” Id. (emphasis added). This language is not
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1704-CR-724 | January 11, 2018 Page 14 of 16
in irreconcilable conflict with Indiana Code section 35-35-3-3(e) which declares
“[i]f the court accepts a plea agreement, it shall be bound by its terms.” Id.
Instead, “[w]here possible, if conflicting portions of a statute can be reconciled
with the remainder of the statute, every word in the statute must be given effect
and meaning, with no part being held meaningless.” State v. Universal Outdoor,
Inc., 880 N.E.2d 1188, 1191 (Ind. 2008). Such is the case here. Although
Indiana Code section 35-38-1-17(l) prohibits a plea agreement from containing
express language waiving the right to sentence modification, the statute does
not prohibit a finding of waiver on other grounds. To conclude otherwise
would mean that Indiana Code section 35-38-1-17(l) effectively repealed
Indiana Code section 35-35-3-3(e). But the Legislature did not expressly repeal
Indiana Code section 35-35-3-3. And the implied repeal of statutes is
disfavored under Indiana law. Waldridge v. Futurex Industries, Inc., 714 N.E.2d
783, 785 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “We repeal statutes by implication only where a
later statute is so repugnant to and inconsistent with an earlier statute that it
must be assumed the legislature did not intend both statutes to stand.” Id. If at
all possible, we will adopt a construction that gives effect to both statutes. Id.
[21] Here, the conflicting provisions of the two statutes may be harmonized in a way
that gives effect to both. In particular, the trial court lacked the authority to
modify Rodriquez’s sentence from work release to home detention not because
of a “waive[r] to the right of sentence modification . . . as part of a plea
agreement.” Ind. Code § 35-38-1-17(l). Instead, the trial court lacked such
authority for a wholly different reason- or in the language of the statute “for any
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1704-CR-724 | January 11, 2018 Page 15 of 16
other reason” - namely: because of the bargain Rodriquez struck with the State
of Indiana that his sentence would be served with a specific entity. More
specifically, Rodriguez agreed to serve a precise sentence with a specific entity:
30 months executed to be served on Elkhart County Work Release for his class
A misdemeanor and level 6 felony offenses; and an additional consecutive fixed
term of 42 months for his HVSO adjudication also to be served on Elkhart
County Work Release. Rodriguez was bound by his agreement with the State,
and having accepted the parties’ agreement the trial court was bound as well.
See e.g. State v. Smith, 71 N.E.3d 368, 370 (Ind. 2017) (reaffirming long standing
precedent which declares “[t]he terms of a plea agreement between the State
and the defendant are contractual in nature. When a trial court accepts a plea
agreement, it is bound by its terms.”) (internal quotations omitted).
[22] In essence, it does not appear the Legislature intended to repeal long-standing
statutory authority or to overrule long-standing judicial precedent by the
enactment of Ind. Code § 35-38-1-17 (l). I conclude therefore the trial court
properly denied Rodriguez’s motion to modify his sentence and I would thus
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1704-CR-724 | January 11, 2018 Page 16 of 16