concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I coneur in the decision of the lead opinion affirming Brown's sentence and awarding him credit time from April 10, 2008 forward, but I respectfully dissent from the decision denying Brown credit time prior to such date.
In Bischoff v. State, 704 N.E.2d 129 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), the defendant was arrested and awaiting trial on a gun charge when he was charged with violating his *598probation. He was found guilty of the gun charge and determined to have violated his probation. The court imposed consecutive sentences and awarded him credit time against the sentence for the gun convietion. On appeal, the defendant claimed he should have credit time against both sentences. We denied double credit time.
Here, Brown is not claiming double credit time; rather, he is asking that be given credit for the time spent in jail on charges that were resolved by his plea agreement. My belief is that where a trial court is sentencing pursuant to a plea agreement that resolves multiple charges, including the charge for which the defendant is being held in jail, that credit time should be accorded against the sentence ultimately imposed in the absence of a provision in the plea agreement to the contrary. Here, the State agreed to dismiss the charges for which Brown was being held. While such a provision is usually to the benefit of the defendant; here, it acted to Brown's detriment. - Had Brown pleaded guilty to one or more of such charges, he clearly would have been entitled to credit time against the resulting sentence.