Buck v. State
| Decision Date | 14 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 18A02-9105-CR-186,18A02-9105-CR-186 |
| Parties | Kenneth L. BUCK, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Alan K. Wilson, Muncie, for appellant-defendant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Sue A. Bradley, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee-plaintiff.
Kenneth L. Buck appeals the revocation of the suspended sentences he received pursuant to a plea agreement.
We affirm.
Whether the trial court erred in revoking Buck's probation.
Buck pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement. The plea agreement provided:
6. The parties agree that the Defendant shall receive the following sentence: On Count II: $150.00 fine plus Court costs; (1) year sentence at the Department of Correction, suspended on the following condition: Twenty (20) days Alternative Service. On Count III: one (1) year sentence at the Department of Correction, suspended, and consecutive with Count II.
Record at 28 (emphasis in original).
The guilty-plea court accepted Buck's guilty pleas, fined him $150.00, assessed costs of $113.00, and sentenced him
to one year to the Department of Correction [on Count II] suspended on the following conditions. That you give twenty days of alternative service ... [o]n the further condition of good behavior the next one year period ... count two--Court sentences you to one year to the Department of Corrections suspended on the conditions of good behavior for the next one year period ... You will be on supervised probation until your twenty days of alternative service is completed. And then you'll be on unsupervised probation for the balance of one year.
Record at 70-71. At the conclusion of the hearing Buck met with his probation officer, as ordered, who gave Buck, in writing, his "Order of Rules of Supervised Probation." Record at 29, 72. 1
On December 26, 1989 Buck moved to Florida without notifying his probation officer and without completing his community
service. As a result, on March 2, 1990 the Probation Department filed a petition to revoke Buck's probation. Following a hearing held January 8, 1991 the trial court revoked Buck's probation because Buck failed to complete the agreed-upon alternative service and failed to inform the court of his current address as required by the written probation order. The court ordered Buck's suspended sentences executed.
Buck claims the guilty-plea court could not place him on supervised probation because it was not specified in the plea agreement and, thus, was an improper enhancement of his sentence. Buck also claims the trial court erred in basing the revocation of his suspended sentence in part on Buck's failure to complete his community service. Buck argues he had at least until the end of the one year period of his first suspended sentence to complete the service and thus asserts the petition to revoke his suspended sentence, which was filed only four months after imposition of his sentence, was premature.
A court is bound by the terms of a plea agreement it accepts. IC 35-35-3-3(e) (1988); see also Reffett v. State (1991), Ind., 571 N.E.2d 1227, 1229; Bartzis v. State (1987), Ind.App., 502 N.E.2d 1347, 1349; Disney v. State (1982), Ind.App., 441 N.E.2d 489, 494. However, when a plea agreement involves probation only conditions of probation that impose a "substantial obligation of a punitive nature ... must be specified in the plea agreement." Disney, 441 N.E.2d at 494. "[A]dministrative or ministerial terms such as reporting to the probation department, notifying the probation officer concerning changes in address or place of employment, supporting dependants, remaining within the jurisdiction of the court, pursuing a course of vocational training, and the like" are proper terms of probation even though they are not specified in the plea agreement. Id. (emphasis added).
The factor that distinguishes probation from a suspended sentence is the imposition of conditions. See Ewing v. State (1974), 160 Ind.App. 138, 145 n. 3, 310 N.E.2d 571, 576 n. 3, overruled in part by, Hoffa v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 133, 368 N.E.2d 250. Here, the plea agreement specifically conditioned the suspension of Buck's sentence on his completion of twenty days of community service. 2 Hence, although Buck's plea agreement did not state explicitly he was to be placed on probation, the agreement implicitly granted Buck a probationary suspension of his sentence and not simply a suspended sentence. Further, the probation term...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Childers v. State
...commit another crime. We disagree. Generally, the trial court is bound by the terms of a plea agreement it accepts. Buck v. State (1991), Ind.App., 580 N.E.2d 730, 732. However, it is not necessary to advise a defendant to avoid committing an additional crime as a condition of probation bec......
-
Minor v. State
...beyond the expiration of the suspended sentence. The plea agreement was silent regarding a period of probation. In Buck v. State (1991), Ind.App., 580 N.E.2d 730, 732, we held that where the plea agreement did not state explicitly that the defendant was placed on probation, the agreement im......
-
Jones v. State
...resembling the situation before us involved failure of the probationer to advise the court of his current address. In Buck v. State (1991) Ind.App., 580 N.E.2d 730, however, the probationer had not only moved to Florida without permission but had also departed after completing less than one......