MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 03 2020, 8:51 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Nathan Hummel Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Westville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Sierra A. Murray
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Nathan Hummel, December 3, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-1316
v. Appeal from the Starke Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kim Hall, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff Trial Court Cause No.
75C01-1112-FA-15
Weissmann, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1316 | December 3, 2020 Page 1 of 5
[1] Nathan Hummel claims a deal is a deal. He asks this Court to enforce the trial
court’s alleged promise to modify his sentence if he completed a drug recovery
program. He also claims the State agreed to a modification. Finding the trial
court never promised a specific outcome and the State never agreed to it, we
affirm the trial court’s refusal to modify Hummel’s sentence.
Facts
[2] In 2012, Hummel and the State negotiated a plea agreement under which
Hummel pleaded guilty to Dealing in a Narcotic Drug, Robbery, and Aiding,
Inducing or Causing Robbery—all Class B felonies—and to Disarming an
Officer, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced Hummel to 25 years in the
Indiana Department of Correction, as specified in the plea agreement.
[3] Seven years later, Hummel requested the trial court modify his sentence by
recommending his placement in IDOC’s Recovery While Incarcerated (RWI)
program. The State did not object, and the trial court granted Hummel’s
request. After Hummel completed the program, he filed a petition to modify
his sentence, which could not be changed without the State’s permission.
[4] In that petition, Hummel alleged the State, by agreeing to modify Hummel’s
sentence to include the RWI recommendation, had consented implicitly to a
further modification after Hummel’s successful completion of the program.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 22. The State disagreed, contending its consent to
allow Hummel to attend RWI did not constitute agreement to reduce his
sentence once he completed the program. Id. at 24. The court could not modify
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1316 | December 3, 2020 Page 2 of 5
Hummel’s sentence without the State’s consent, and thus the court denied the
petition for modification. Id. at 25.
[5] Hummel filed a motion to correct error, claiming the court promised to modify
Hummel’s sentence after his successful completion of RWI. Id. at 26.
According to Hummel, the State agreed at the RWI modification hearing that it
would not object to a post-RWI modification. Id. at 26. The trial court denied
the motion to correct error, finding Hummel’s assertions to be inaccurate. Id. at
26. Instead, the trial court reiterated that it promised only to consider a
sentence modification, not to grant one. Id. at 27. Moreover, the State never
agreed to a modification, which was a prerequisite to the court granting one.
Finding no error in the court’s decision, we affirm.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Hummel’s chief complaint on appeal is that both the State and the trial court
reneged on their promises of a sentencing modification after his completion of
RWI. A trial court’s decision regarding a sentencing modification is reviewed
for an abuse of discretion. Gardiner v. State, 928 N.E.2d 194, 196 (Ind. 2010).
The trial court commits an abuse of discretion when it misinterprets the law or
its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.
Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013).
[7] No abuse of discretion occurred here. As for any notion that the prosecutor
and trial court reneged on promises to Hummel, Hummel misinterprets the
Record. The transcript of the hearing on Hummel’s request for RWI placement
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1316 | December 3, 2020 Page 3 of 5
shows only that the State did not object to modifying Hummel’s sentence to
include a recommendation for RWI. Tr. Vol. II p. 4. The prosecutor made no
further promises. Nor did the trial court, which merely commented:
And then, so, I’m making sure the Prosecutor understands my
understanding of this modification.
If I grant this request then we will change the sentencing order and that
will be sent off to the DOC, specifically, Westville, and presumably,
although it’s not an order, I don’t have the authority to order them to
place Mr. Hummel in any certain program within the walls of the DOC,
but one would assume that they will, and that whenever, assuming that
he does successfully complete the program, what a judge is saying to a
defendant is that the court will consider a modification after the
successful completion of . . . Recovery While Incarcerated . . . [W]e’ll
make these changes, send it off to them(,) and they’ll probably put Mr.
Hummel into one of their programs and Mr. Hummel will probably
successfully complete that, at some point, and then the Court definitely
will consider a modification, at that time, and for what it’s worth, the
Court will probably modify his sentence, because we usually do, after
completion of the substance abuse treatment program, inside the
DOC . . .
And I’m again making the record clear that this was an original
prosecution that was resolved by a plea agreement which is right here in
black and white but the State has agreed today with the Defendant to
give the Court the authority to accept their agreement and have (RWI)
put into the sentencing order.
Tr. Vol. II pp. 5-6.
[8] Contrary to Hummel’s assertions, the trial court made no promises for a future
reduction in sentence. The trial court merely suggested the strong possibility of
a sentencing modification if Hummel were to complete RWI successfully. The
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1316 | December 3, 2020 Page 4 of 5
State never agreed to a post-RWI sentencing modification. It merely consented
to modifying Hummel’s sentence to include the recommendation for RWI.
Hummel received what he was promised: an opportunity to participate in RWI.
[9] The court was without authority to modify Hummel’s sentence without the
State’s consent because, among other things, Hummel was sentenced under the
terms of a plea agreement. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it
denied Hummel’s request for a sentence modification that the court was
without authority to grant.
[10] As no promises for a sentencing reduction after Hummel’s completion of RWI
were made, none were broken. Hummel received the deal he bargained for—
just not the deal he desired.
[11] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Mathias, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1316 | December 3, 2020 Page 5 of 5