In addition to offenders who are not eligible for sentencing changes, there are also additional restrictions for offenders who qualify. Among these restrictions, an offender can only apply for a petition once within 365 days and an offender may be the subject of a crime only twice in a row. In addition, it should be noted that the possibility of requesting a change of sentence may also be excluded in the case of a plea sentence. This means that if your plea agreement a certain sentence to serve, that sentence will not be subject to the modification of the Indiana sentence. With the maintenance of a decades-old rule, recently codified by a change in the law, the Indiana Supreme Court has decided, in accompanying cases, that courts can amend a sentence that was introduced only as part of a fixed plan agreement only if the amended sentence had not violated oral arguments at the time of the initial sentencing. For a variety of reasons, defendants often want (and deserve) their sentences to be changed after their conviction. Perhaps the individual has attended education or rehabilitation programs while incarcerated. Perhaps continued detention of the individual`s family would cause an undue emergency. Perhaps new facts have emerged, suggesting that the original sentence was unfair.
There are many situations that could justify a change of sentence. This rule was, however, conceivable with the 2014 amendment which, according to I.C 35-28-1-17 (l), stipulated that “a) the person cannot waive the right to waive an amendment under this section as part of a plea.” Due to the confusion created by the OCA`s opinions, the General Assembly amended in 2018 i.C 35-38-17 (e) to justify that “if the convicted person has been convicted in a plea, the court cannot reduce or suspend the sentence without the consent of the prosecutor and impose a sentence that has not been authorized by the opposition agreement.” In Rodriguez, Alberto Rodriguez pleaded guilty to manslaughter and drink-driving and was sentenced to six years of work permit. The agreement established that there was “no room for appreciation” to change Rodriguez`s order of conviction while he remained at work at the time of his dismissal.