Rush, J.
In the absence of a plea agreement, trial courts have broad discretion to set conditions of probation, including “substantial punitive obligations” such as restrictive placements in work release. But when a trial court accepts a plea agreement with an executed time cap, its discretion to impose further punitive conditions of probation does not extend beyond what the plea agreement specifies. As we interpret Defendant’s plea agreement, it conferred discretion to determine the placement of his executed sentence, but not for any further restrictive placement as a condition of probation. Defendant’s one-year term in work release as a condition of probation, following the maximum executed term allowed under the agreement, thus exceeded the court’s authority. We therefore grant transfer and remand with instructions to accept or reject the plea agreement as written, and if accepted, to resentence Defendant consistent with its terms. . . . .
Defendant was charged with C-felony burglary and D-felony theft, and later pleaded guilty to B-felony burglary and several lesser offenses as part of a combined plea agreement for this and three other cases. So far as relevant here, paragraph 5 of the plea agreement provided:
5. . . . [T]he State of Indiana and the Defendant agrees [sic] that the Court shall impose the following sentence:
Total combined sentence:
Set term of 10 years initial executed sentence, open to placement. The Court may impose an additional period of time beyond these 10 years and require the Defendant to serve a portion or all of that suspended time on probation.
* * *
Stay away from [the home where Defendant committed the B-felony burglary]. . . . All other aspects of the Defendant’s sentence to be left to the discretion of the Court, after argument by the parties, including but not limited to, where the Defendant will serve any executed portion of his sentence. Should the Defendant violate the terms and conditions of his probation, the Court may order any or all of the suspended time to be executed.
(Emphases added). [Footnote omitted.] Thus, the agreement expressly confers discretion to determine the placement for the executed sentence, but it has no express provision for setting a restrictive placement for any additional suspended time.
. . . .
The trial court then sentenced Defendant to a total of fifteen years for the B-felony burglary, footnote omitted] with ten executed in prison and five suspended, with two of the suspended years served on probation—but further “order[ed] the first year of your probationary period be spent through work elease to get yourself back into the attitude that a fulltime job is important and necessary.” . . . .
. . . .
The issue here, then, is whether the terms of this particular plea agreement confer sufficient discretion to impose punitive conditions of probation—specifically, a restrictive placement—in excess of the executed-time cap. In construing the plea agreement, we are guided (though not strictly bound) by contract interpretation principles, Lee, 816 N.E.2d at 38, and therefore begin with its plain language and read its provisions as a harmonious whole if possible. Citimortgage, Inc. v. Barabas, 975 N.E.2d 805, 813 (Ind. 2012), reh’g denied. In this context, we harmonize three related provisions of the contract: that the ten-year initial executed sentence was “open to placement,” that the court could impose additional suspended time to be served on probation, and that “[a]ll other aspects of the Defendant’s sentence [were] to be left to the discretion of the Court, . . . including but not limited to, where the Defendant will serve any executed portion of his sentence.”
. . . .
We see this plea agreement as comparable to Tubbs, with a specific provision that at least ambiguously controls over a more general one. This agreement stated that “[a]ll . . . aspects of the Defendant’s sentence” except the mandatory ten-year executed term and restitution were “left to the discretion of the Court, after argument by the parties, including but not limited to[] where the Defendant will serve any executed portion of his sentence” (emphasis added). The first part of that sentence is akin to the general paragraph in Tubbs, purportedly leaving “all aspects” of the sentence “to the discretion of the Court.” Standing alone, that provision might be enough to authorize a punitive, restrictive placement for Defendant’s probation—though it certainly is not as clear as Antcliff’s unambiguous provision that “terms of probation . . . will be left to the Court’s discretion,” 688 N.E.2d at 168. (Better still would be to specify the court’s discretion to set “punitive terms of probation,” to place the issue beyond all doubt. An ounce of drafting is worth a pound of appeal.).
But the final clause of the same sentence goes on to restrict the court’s discretion as “including[,] but not limited to, where the Defendant will serve any executed portion of his sentence.” That provision specifically grants discretion to determine the placement of Defendant’s executed sentence, but it is silent as to any such discretion to impose any restrictive placement for probation—when Freije requires that any authority to set punitive conditions of probation “must be specified in the plea agreement,” 709 N.E.2d at 324 (emphasis added) (quoting Disney, 441 N.E.2d at 494). Thus, specifically granting discretion over the placement of Defendant’s ten-year executed sentence strongly implies a lack of comparable authority to set a similar restrictive placement during any subsequent probation time. [Footnote omitted.] . . . .
Our conclusion is also consistent with the trial court’s excellent plain-English colloquy with Defendant and counsel about the parties’ understanding of the plea agreement. The court recognized that the sentencing provisions of this agreement were “confusing,” and asked the parties to explain what they intended. In response, the Defendant explained his recognition that the court had authority to determine the placement for his executed sentence, but expressed no recognition of similar authority for any probation time. Defense counsel’s explanation was similar, as was the deputy prosecutor’s. And at no time during that discussion did the court suggest that it understood its placement discretion to extend to Defendant’s probation time. With no clear grant of such authority in the agreement itself, no indication that any of the parties understood the plea agreement to confer such discretion, and a specific provision that implies the absence of discretion over the placement of Defendant’s probation, we must conclude that the trial court lacked authority to impose a punitive placement for Defendant’s probation.
Dickson, C.J., and David and Massa, JJ., concur.
Rucker, J. concurs in result.