Harley R. Crane, Jr. v. State of Indiana

FILED Jun 18 2020, 7:18 am

CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Suzy St. John Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana Tyler G. Banks Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Harley R. Crane, Jr., June 18, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-2292 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Angela Davis, Appellee-Plaintiff, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G16-1905-F6-21384

Robb, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2292 | June 18, 2020 Page 1 of 3 [1] Harley Crane was tried by a jury on Count I, invasion of privacy, a Class A

misdemeanor, and Count II, possession of marijuana, a Class B misdemeanor.

The jury found him not guilty of Count I and guilty of Count II. See Transcript,

Volume II at 185. The trial court indicated it would enter judgment on the

jury’s verdict on Count II and set the case for sentencing. See id. at 186. The

trial court subsequently sentenced him to 180 days, with credit for twelve actual

days served and the remaining 156 days suspended, and ordered ninety days of

probation. The sentencing order states as follows:

Appealed Order at 1. [2] Crane appeals, raising the sole issue of whether the case should be remanded to

the trial court to amend its sentencing order to also reflect the disposition of

Count I. Crane asserts the accuracy of a sentencing order is important as a

practical matter because sentencing orders “are used by the Indiana State Police

to create criminal cross matches [that] play a role in establishing pretrial release

terms and sentences.” Brief of Appellant at 6-7. The State agrees the case

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2292 | June 18, 2020 Page 2 of 3

should be remanded to reflect the not guilty verdict on Count I. See Brief of

Appellee at 5. [3] The sentencing order purports to show the crimes the defendant was charged

with and the resulting dispositions. See Appealed Order at 1. And yet this

sentencing order does not include any information about Count I. The better

practice is for sentencing orders to be complete and accurate with respect to the

charges that were tried and the disposition of each, not just the charges that

were reduced to a conviction. We therefore remand the case to the trial court to

amend its sentencing order to reflect that Crane was also tried on Count I and

found not guilty. See Stott v. State, 822 N.E.2d 176, 178 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)

(remanding to correct a sentencing order that did not accurately reflect the oral

disposition of all charges), trans. denied. [4] Remanded.

May, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2292 | June 18, 2020 Page 3 of 3