In Henriquez v. State, No. 20A04-1510-CR-1841, ____N.E.3d____ (Ind. Ct. App., August 9, 2016), at issue on appeal was whether the trial court failed to comply with I.C. 35-38-1-1(b) that requires the court to advise the defendant of the earliest release date and the maximum possible release date. Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik reviewed the legislative intent of the statute and determined that a plausible interpretation of the language is for the trial court to advise the defendant of specific potential release dates. However, she noted that at best the trial court could provide an estimate. The Court of Appeals encouraged the legislature to reconsider this statute and “the unworkable obligation it places on our trial courts.”
At the September 2016 Board of Directors meeting, the Criminal Law Policy Committee recommended an amendment to remove this language.
Senate Enrolled Act 120 signed into law and effective April 13, 2017 amends I.C. 35-38-1-1(b) and no longer requires advice that the sentence is “for not less than the earliest release date and for not more than the maximum possible release date.” The amendment does require advisement of the days and types of pretrial confinement.