Menifee v. State
| Citation | 605 N.E.2d 1207 |
| Decision Date | 19 January 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 48A05-9201-CR-11,48A05-9201-CR-11 |
| Parties | Steven R. MENIFEE, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Steven R. Menifee petitions for rehearing asserting we erred in affirming the trial court's re-institution of sentences after his probation violations, 600 N.E.2d 967. Menifee specifically contends we did not follow Reffett v. State (1991), Ind., 571 N.E.2d 1227, and did not recognize he had a "contract" with the trial court which limited his sentence to 5 1/2 years instead of the 15 1/2 year sentence originally and subsequently imposed.
We disagree with both of Menifee's contentions. However, we will discuss these contentions to clarify our original opinion.
In Reffett, the trial court accepted a plea agreement without first having read a pre-sentence report subsequently prepared. After reading the report, the court disavowed the plea agreement. On appeal, our supreme court held a trial court may accept or reject a plea agreement in its discretion, but after accepting the plea, the court is "bound by its terms" under IND.CODE 35-35-3-3.
In the present case, the trial court originally accepted a plea agreement which gave Menifee eight years suspended with four years on probation for Attempted Robbery and six years with one year executed and five years on probation for Burglary. When a new charge was filed, the trial court accepted a new plea agreement apparently believing Menifee would benefit from alternative sentencing. In consequence it sentenced Menifee to a 5 1/2 year term at Riverside Correctional Hospital. Even though Menifee later was thrown out of Riverside as an incorrigible, the trial court still attempted to allow Menifee the benefit of alternative sentencing through home detention. After Menifee violated the conditions of home detention, the trial court realized the intent of the plea agreement, i.e. rehabilitation through a 5 1/2 year period of alternative sentencing, could not be accomplished because of Menifee's violations. It then imposed the original sentences for attempted Robbery and Burglary plus a sentence for Theft, totaling 15 1/2 years total imprisonment, all without probation or alternative sentencing.
The trial court fully complied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Childers v. State
...is a favor to the defendant, not a right. Menifee v. State (1992), Ind.App., 600 N.E.2d 967, 969, reh'g denied, (1993), Ind.App., 605 N.E.2d 1207; Duncanson v. State (1979), 181 Ind.App. 370, 391 N.E.2d 1157, 1164. Moreover, the court may terminate the probation at any time. I.C. § 35-38-2-......
-
Braxton v. State
...of probation, we will affirm its decision to revoke probation. Menifee v. State (1992), Ind.App., 600 N.E.2d 967, 970, reh'g denied (1993), 605 N.E.2d 1207; Jaynes, 437 N.E.2d at The State presented evidence in this case that the police found marijuana in Braxton's purse. As a condition of ......
-
Pugh v. State
...N.E.2d 166 (Ind.1998); Menifee v. State, 600 N.E.2d 967, 970 (Ind. Ct.App.1992),clarified on other grounds on denial of reh'g 605 N.E.2d 1207 (Ind.Ct. App.1993). As we have [T]he granting of a conditional liberty is a favor and not a right. When a trial court grants a defendant probation in......
-
Wilburn v. State
...for the commission of an additional crime. Menifee v. State, 600 N.E.2d 967, 969 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), reh'g denied and clarified, 605 N.E.2d 1207. The trial court may revoke probation for the mere commission of a criminal offense during the probationary period which the State has properly est......