Summary
The Supreme Court of Indiana held that a defendant who pleads guilty under an agreement requiring a fixed sentence but leaving the amount to be suspended to the trial court's discretion does not waive review under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). The court affirmed the judgment while declining to further address the merits of Rivera's claim that his sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a defendant who pleads guilty under an agreement requiring a fixed ten-year sentence but leaving the manner of service to the trial court may challenge the sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).
- Whether Rivera's sentence should be revised under Rule 7(B) as inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.
Holdings
- Rivera did not waive his right to challenge the appropriateness of his sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) because the plea agreement left the trial court discretion to determine how much of the ten-year sentence would be executed and how much would be suspended to probation.
- A sentence resulting from a plea agreement is subject to Rule 7(B) review when the trial court exercises discretion in imposing the sentence; a plea agreement specifying a precise term of years leaves the court without discretion to impose any other sentence and is not subject to such review on that basis.
Key quotations
“Only if the trial court is exercising discretion in imposing sentence may a defendant then contest on appeal the merits of that discretion on the grounds that the sentence is "inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and character of the offender."” (851 N.E.2d at 301)
“And precisely because the trial court retained discretion in determining the amount of the sentence that would be executed, Rivera did not waive his right to contest the merits of that discretion on grounds that the sentence is "inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender."” (851 N.E.2d at 302)
Factual background
Rivera, then twenty years old, sold approximately two pounds of methamphetamine to an undercover police officer for $1,000. He pleaded guilty under an agreement requiring a ten-year sentence but leaving the manner of service to the trial court. The trial court suspended four years to probation and ordered six years executed.
Procedural history
Rivera was charged with Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine and pleaded guilty pursuant to an agreement specifying a ten-year sentence but allowing the parties to argue about how the sentence would be served. The trial court suspended four years to probation and ordered six years executed. The Court of Appeals held that Rivera had waived his Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) challenge by agreeing to the fixed ten-year term, although it also considered and rejected the merits. On transfer, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment and declined to revisit the fact-specific merits determination.