Weidman v. State
| Decision Date | 28 April 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 03A01–1306–CR–255.,03A01–1306–CR–255. |
| Citation | 7 N.E.3d 385 |
| Parties | John M. WEIDMAN, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Andrew J. Baldwin, Baldwin Adams & Kamish, PC, Franklin, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Katherine Modesitt Cooper, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN Attorneys for Appellee.
John M. Weidman (“Weidman”) pleaded guilty in Bartholomew Circuit Court to Class C felony dealing in marijuana, two counts of Class D felony attempted receiving stolen property, Class D felony dealing in marijuana, and Class D felony possession of marijuana. The trial court sentenced Weidman to an executed term of fourteen years, and Weidman appeals, claiming that he should have been given credit for the time he spent on electronic monitoring as a condition of bond. Because Weidman specifically agreed in his plea agreement that he was not entitled to credit for time that he was on electronic monitoring, we affirm.
The State charged Weidman on February 14, 2011 under Cause No. 03C01–1102–FA–898 (“Cause No. FA–898”) with Class A felony dealing in cocaine, Class B felony dealing in cocaine, Class C felony dealing in marijuana, two counts of Class D felony attempted receiving stolen property, and Class D felony dealing in marijuana. The trial court set Weidman's bond at $150,000 or 10% cash; thus, Weidman needed $15,000 cash to bond out. Weidman subsequently filed motions to reduce his bond to $60,000 or 10% cash, which the trial court granted. After Weidman posted a $6,000 cash bond, he was released and placed on electronic monitoring on March 21, 2011. Shortly thereafter, Weidman filed a motion requesting that his bond be increased to $150,000 or 10% cash and that he be released from electronic monitoring. The trial court denied this motion.
While Weidman was on electronic monitoring, the police discovered a large amount of marijuana in a house owned by Weidman that was adjacent to Weidman's own home. As a result, Weidman was charged on May 23, 2012 with Class D felony possession of marijuana in Cause No. 03C01–1205–FC–2659 (“Cause No. FC–2659”). Weidman did not post bond on this charge.
On December 21, 2012, Weidman and the State entered into an agreement in which Weidman would plead guilty in Cause No. FA–898 to Class C felony dealing in marijuana, Class D felony dealing in marijuana, and two counts of Class D felony attempted receiving stolen property. As part of this plea deal, Weidman also agreed to plead guilty in Cause No. FC–2659 to Class D felony possession of marijuana. The trial court held a hearing on the matter on January 24, 2013, and at this hearing, Weidman argued that he should receive credit for the time he had been released on bond on electronic monitoring. At the conclusion of this hearing, the trial court rejected the plea agreement.
On April 15, 2013, Weidman and the State again entered into a plea agreement in which Weidman agreed to plead guilty in Cause No. FA–898 to Class C felony dealing in marijuana, Class D felony dealing in marijuana, and two counts of Class D felony attempted receiving stolen property; in Cause No. FC–2659, Weidman again agreed to plead guilty to Class D felony possession of marijuana. The parties also agreed that the sentences on the dealing in marijuana convictions would be served concurrently and that the sentences on the attempted receiving stolen property convictions would be served concurrently but that these two groups of concurrent sentences would be served consecutively to each other. The agreement also provided that the sentence in Cause No. FC–2659 would be served consecutively to the sentences in Cause No. FA–898. Lastly, as part of the plea agreement, Weidman specifically agreed that he was not entitled to credit time toward his sentences for the period of time that he was on electronic monitoring as a condition of his release on bond. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court accepted the plea and sentenced Weidman to the maximum under the terms of the plea—fourteen years incarceration. Weidman now appeals.
Weidman argues that he is entitled to credit for the time he was on electronic monitoring as a condition of his release on bond. However, as noted above, Weidman specifically agreed in his plea agreement that he was not entitled to such credit....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gorman v. State
...241, 244-45 (Ind. 2012).2 Even rights of a constitutional dimension may be expressly waived by a plea agreement. Weidman v. State, 7 N.E.3d 385, 386-87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). Defendants are bound by their plea agreements unless it is shown that the plea was not knowingly or voluntarily enter......