MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 31 2018, 8:48 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Bryan M. Truitt Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Bertig and Associates Attorney General of Indiana
Valparaiso, Indiana
Michael Gene Worden
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Richard M. Statler, July 31, 2018
Appellant/Cross-Appellee-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-182
v. Appeal from the
Porter Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee/Cross-Appellant-Plaintiff. William E. Alexa, Judge
The Honorable
Jeffrey W. Clymer, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
64D02-1605-F5-4905
Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-182 | July 31, 2018 Page 1 of 7
[1] Following his plea of guilty to two counts of Level 5 felony sexual misconduct
with a minor,1 Richard M. Statler (“Statler”) appeals his sentence contending
that the trial court abused its discretion and that his sentence is inappropriate in
light of the nature of the offenses and his character. The State cross appeals,
arguing that Statler has waived his right to appeal his sentence by the terms of
his plea agreement. We find the State’s issue to be dispositive.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] From June 16 through June 18, 2015, Statler’s fourteen-year-old granddaughter,
K.C., and her fifteen-year-old friend, R.M., stayed at Statler’s home in
Chesterton, Indiana. During that visit, Statler committed various improper
acts, including: (1) supplying the girls with alcohol and giving them money and
transportation to buy marijuana; (2) holding K.C. tightly and kissing and
sucking her breasts; (3) kissing K.C. on the lips and fondling her vagina; (4)
touching R.M.’s breasts over her clothes; (5) touching R.M.’s “butt” and
making her touch his penis over his clothes; (6) asking the girls to have sex with
each other so he could watch; (7) asking R.M. if she would give him a “blow
job”; and (8) giving the girls some of his medicine, advising that it would calm
them down. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 19-20.
1
See Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(b).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-182 | July 31, 2018 Page 2 of 7
[4] The State charged Statler with two counts of Level 5 felony sexual misconduct
with a minor, two counts of Level 5 felony child solicitation, and two counts of
Level 5 felony contributing to the delinquency of a minor. By written plea
agreement, Statler pleaded guilty to two counts of Level 5 felony sexual
misconduct with a minor in exchange for the State dismissing the remaining
four counts. The plea agreement required Statler to register as a sex offender
and capped his executed sentence at five years. Within those limits, the trial
court had discretion in sentencing; there was no limit on probation, except as
provided by statute. Id. at 53. Included among the provisions to which Statler
agreed was Paragraph (10), which provided:
I waive all right to appeal my conviction, my sentence, any
restitution order imposed, and/or the manner in which my
conviction, my sentence, and/or the restitution order was/were
determined or imposed on any grounds in this cause.
Id. at 55.
[5] Statler and his attorney each signed the plea agreement, thereby agreeing to its
terms. During the guilty plea hearing, the trial court advised Statler that he was
waiving certain rights, including the right to “appeal to the Indiana appellate
court.”2 Tr. Vol. 2 at 15. Statler withdrew his previous plea of not guilty and
entered a plea of guilty to two counts of Level 5 felony sexual misconduct with
2
Statler did not include the transcript of his guilty plea hearing with the record on appeal; however, during
the sentencing hearing, the trial court reiterated that Statler had been informed during the initial change of
plea hearing that he was waiving certain rights, including the right to a direct appeal. Tr. Vol. 2 at 15.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-182 | July 31, 2018 Page 3 of 7
a minor, and the State moved to dismiss the remaining four counts. The trial
court subsequently accepted the plea agreement. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 6.
[6] During the October 2017 sentencing hearing, the trial court considered the
aggravating and mitigating factors set out in the pre-sentence investigation
report, including, Statler’s age, his poor health, the fact that he had no prior
criminal history or substance abuse history, the fact that Statler later
downplayed the acts to which he had pleaded guilty, the fact that he violated a
position of trust, and the harm he caused to the victims. The trial court
sentenced him to consecutive sentences of four years for each of Count I and
Count II, with Count I executed and Count II fully suspended to probation, for
an aggregate executed sentence of four years. Tr. Vol. 2 at 13. At the close of
the sentencing hearing, the trial court incorrectly advised Statler that he had the
right to appeal his sentence. Id. at 15-16. Thereafter, Statler unsuccessfully
challenged his sentence in a motion to correct error. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Statler contends that the trial court abused its discretion during sentencing and
that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his
character. In its cross appeal, the State argues that Statler waived his right to
appeal his sentence pursuant to Paragraph (10) of his plea agreement. Finding
the State’s cross appeal to be dispositive, we address only that issue.
[8] In the instant case, Statler did not file a reply brief or otherwise respond to the
State’s allegation on cross appeal that he has waived his right to appeal his
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-182 | July 31, 2018 Page 4 of 7
sentence pursuant to his plea agreement. Under such circumstances, if we find
prima facie error, the State may prevail. Amphonephong v. State, 32 N.E.3d 825,
830 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). Prima facie error is error at first sight, on first
appearance, or on the face of it. Id.
[9] To support its claim, the State cites to Creech v. State, 887 N.E.2d 73, 74 (Ind.
2008), where the defendant argued on transfer that “he did not knowingly and
voluntarily waive his right to appellate review and that his sentence was
inappropriate.” In Creech, our Supreme Court held that “a defendant may
waive the right to appellate review of his sentence as part of a written plea
agreement.” 887 N.E.2d at 75.3 Specifically, in Creech, the defendant’s plea
agreement left his sentence to the trial court’s discretion, and he agreed to waive
his right to appeal the sentence so long as he was sentenced within the terms of
his plea agreement. Id. at 74. After the defendant had already entered his plea
of guilty and been sentenced, the trial court erroneously advised the defendant
at the close of the sentencing hearing that he retained the right to appeal his
sentence. Id. Our Supreme Court held that provisions waiving the right to
appellate review of a sentence are enforceable as part of a written plea
agreement.4 Id. at 75. The Court further determined that after a defendant
3
Our Supreme Court subsequently noted that in Indiana, a defendant can even waive his right to appeal an
illegal sentence. Crider v. State, 984 N.E.2d 618, 625 (Ind. 2013) (“Absent due process concerns to the
contrary, when a defendant explicitly agrees to a particular sentence or a specific method of imposition of
sentences, whether or not the sentence or method is authorized by the law, he cannot later appeal such
sentence on the ground that it is illegal.”).
4
In Archer v. State, 81 N.E.3d 212, 215-16 (Ind. 2017), our Supreme Court recently noted:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-182 | July 31, 2018 Page 5 of 7
pleads guilty and receives the benefit of the plea bargain, subsequent actions by
the trial court do not affect that waiver, recognizing that “[m]ost waivers are
effective when set out in writing and signed.” Id. at 76 (alteration in original)
(quoting United States v. Wenger, 58 F.3d 280, 282 (7th Cir.1995), superseded by
statute on other grounds). Therefore, the Creech Court held that the trial court’s
erroneous advisement at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing had no effect
on an otherwise knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right to
appeal and was not grounds for allowing the defendant to circumvent the terms
of his plea agreement.5 Id. at 76.
[10] Under his plea agreement, Statler agreed to plead guilty to two counts of Level
5 felony sexual misconduct with a minor and to “waive all right to appeal [his] .
. . sentence . . . on any grounds in this cause.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 53, 54.
In exchange, the State dismissed four Level 5 felony counts and agreed to cap
Statler’s executed sentence to five years. Statler received the benefit of his
Plea agreements are contracts and once the trial court accepts it, a plea agreement and its terms
are binding upon the trial court, the State and the defendant. Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134,
1144 (Ind. 2013). Because a plea agreement is a contract, the principles of contract law can
provide guidance when considering plea agreements. Griffin v. State, 756 N.E.2d 572, 574 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2001). A defendant may waive his or her right to appeal a sentence as part of a plea
agreement and such waivers are valid and enforceable. Creech v. State, 887 N.E.2d 73, 74-75
(Ind. 2008).
5
Since Creech, this Court has repeatedly held that a trial court’s erroneous advisement of a right to appeal
during a sentencing hearing does not invalidate an otherwise knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of
the right to appeal. See, e.g., Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015, 1017 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied; Ivy v.
State, 947 N.E.2d 496, 499 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011); Akens v. State, 929 N.E.2d 265, 266 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
But see Crider v. State, 984 N.E.2d 618, 625 (Ind. 2013); Bonilla v. State, 907 N.E.2d 586, 589 (Ind. Ct. App.
2009), trans. denied; Ricci v. State, 894 N.E.2d 1089, 1093 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied (cases
distinguishing Creech and finding waiver of right to appeal unenforceable on other grounds).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-182 | July 31, 2018 Page 6 of 7
bargain when the four counts were dismissed, and he was sentenced to just four
years executed.
[11] Consistent with Creech, we conclude that Statler’s waiver of his right to appeal is
enforceable as part of his written plea agreement. The trial court’s erroneous
advisement to Statler concerning a right to appeal, given, as it was, at the
conclusion of the sentencing hearing, had no effect on his prior waiver of that
right. Creech, 887 N.E.2d at 76. The trial court’s statement that Statler could
appeal his sentence was not made until after the court had accepted the plea
agreement and ordered his sentence. Tr. Vol. 2 at 15. Indeed, Statler had
already received the benefit of his bargain prior to the trial court’s misstatement.
Moreover, as noted above, Statler failed to respond to the State’s cross appeal,
so he makes no claim that the waiver of his right to appeal was not otherwise
knowing, voluntary, or intelligent. Statler signed a clearly stated written waiver
of the right to appeal his sentence “on any grounds.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at
55. Accordingly, we conclude that Statler waived the right to appeal his
sentence.
[12] Affirmed.
[13] Baker, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-182 | July 31, 2018 Page 7 of 7