The State also objected to Jarvis’ averment in his motion that it had consented to a modification and stated that it did “not now consent to a modification.” (Appellant’s App.
Mario exe wiki trial#
On November 2, 2020, the State filed its response to Jarvis’ motion for modification in which it argued that the trial court was without authority to modify Jarvis’ sentence because he had pleaded guilty pursuant to a fixed plea agreement which left no sentencing discretion to the trial court. A report from the IDOC generated on October 22, 2020, related that Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-188 | J of 7 Jarvis was then enrolled in RWI but did not indicate that he had completed RWI or any other substance abuse treatment.
Mario exe wiki pro#
On September 25, 2020, Jarvis filed an unverified pro se motion for modification of sentence in which he averred, among other things, that “the prosecuting attorney has consented to a modification” and requested that the trial court order a report regarding his conduct while incarcerated. The abstract also indicated that Jarvis was not to be placed in Purposeful Incarceration. The abstract of judgment issued in conjunction with Jarvis’ sentence repeated the foregoing provision regarding Jarvis’ right to petition for modification upon successful completion of a substance abuse treatment program. The ourt will consider such modification upon receipt of petition and review of the progress report. However, on December 9, 2019, the trial court also issued its written sentencing order, which, in addition to sentencing Jarvis to the IDOC for three and one-half years, provided that pon successful completion of the clinically appropriate substance abuse treatment program as determined by IDOC, the court will consider a modification to this sentence. In its oral sentencing statement, the trial court did not mention that it would consider modifying Jarvis’ sentence upon the successful completion of substance abuse treatment at the IDOC. After formally accepting Jarvis’ guilty plea and entering judgment of conviction for Level 5 felony attempted burglary, the trial court sentenced Jarvis to three and one-half years in the IDOC.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-188 | J of 7 On December 9, 2019, the trial court held Jarvis’ sentencing hearing. The trial court took Jarvis’ plea under advisement. The written plea agreement did not contain any terms pertaining to whether Jarvis could petition to modify his sentence. The parties agree that RWI is an acronym for Recovery While Incarcerated, a substance abuse treatment program. The plea agreement also provided that the trial court “shall recommend RWI in IDOC.” (Appellant’s App. On November 12, 2019, Jarvis pleaded guilty pursuant to an agreement with the State that he would serve a fixed three-and-one-half-year sentence with the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) and the State would dismiss the conspiracy charge. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On April 12, 2019, the State filed an Information, charging Jarvis with Level 5 felony attempted burglary and Level 5 felony conspiracy to commit burglary. ISSUE Jarvis presents this court with one issue on appeal: Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it summarily denied his motion to modify his sentence. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-188 | J of 7 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant-Defendant, Michael Jarvis (Jarvis), appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to modify the sentence imposed by the trial court following his guilty plea to attempted burglary, a Level 5 felony, Ind. Plummer, III, Judge Trial Court Cause No.
Appeal from the Lawrence Superior Court The Honorable John M. Jarvis, JAppellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
Hosler Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Michael L. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Steven J. FILED Jul 22 2021, 9:00 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Cara Schaefer Wieneke Brooklyn, Indiana Theodore E. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
0 kommentar(er)
