Kirsch, J.
….
Purdue was arrested for theft and resisting law enforcement on January 29, 2015 and was held in the Bartholomew County Jail until January 31; at that time he was not formally charged. A few weeks later, on February 22, Purdue was arrested and charged with three new counts of theft under Cause No. 03C01-1503-F6-1180 (“Cause No. 1180”). Purdue was again released. On February 27, 2015, the State charged Purdue, under Cause No. 03C01-1502-F6-1030 (“Cause No. 1030”), for the acts he committed on January 29—one count each of Level 6 felony theft and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. … On March 10, Purdue was arrested and charged under Cause No. 03C01-1503-F6-1246 (“Cause No. 1246”) with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 6 felony possession of narcotic drug, Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass, and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. On April 2, 2015, Purdue, citing all three cause numbers in his caption, filed a Motion to Reduce Bond; after a hearing, the trial court denied Purdue’s motion. Purdue remained in pre-trial confinement from March 10 until July 16, 2015 [footnote omitted]—a period of 128 days.
On June 8, 2015, Purdue … pleaded guilty to the two charges alleged in Cause No. 1030 in exchange for the dismissal of Cause Nos. 1180 and 1246. The Plea Agreement was silent as to how much credit time Purdue would be granted toward his sentence. The trial court accepted Purdue’s guilty plea and entered judgment of conviction for the theft and resisting law enforcement charges under Cause No. 1030. [Record citations omitted throughout.]
Purdue’s presentence investigation report (“PSI”) was submitted to the trial court on June 29, 2015, and provided that Purdue would have 131 “actual jail days” by the date of sentencing. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court asked Purdue, “[I]s the [PSI] true and accurate in all regards including the fact that you should receive 131 days of credit for time served?” Purdue agreed that the PSI was correct, however, the State voiced its disagreement concerning the amount of accrued time, reasoning * * * that since the 128 days [from March 10 through July 16] were served awaiting trial on Cause Nos. 1180 and 1246, causes that were dismissed by the Plea Agreement, Purdue could not get credit for those days against his sentence for Cause No. 1030. The trial court agreed, and granted Purdue credit only for the accrued time for his January 29 to January 31 confinement. We disagree with the trial court’s decision.
….
We agree that Purdue would not be entitled to credit time for days served on wholly unrelated offenses; however, those are not the facts before us. Purdue was charged under Cause Nos. 1030 and 1180 before he was arrested in connection with Cause No. 1246; therefore, all three causes were pending during his 128 days of confinement. From the record before us, it is clear that the trial court, as well as the parties, did not consider these three causes to be wholly unrelated. All of the significant pleadings [and scheduling orders] referenced all three cause numbers. …
Additionally, the record reflects that the three cause numbers, and the underlying charges of each, were considered together during the give and take process of plea negotiations. … Purdue’s Plea Agreement also referenced all three cause numbers. Given this record, Cause Nos. 1180 and 1246 were not wholly unrelated to Cause No. 1030.
Here, Purdue did not ask the trial court to grant accrued time for confinement spent in another state or another county. He did not ask for double credit, which would have effectively changed his consecutive sentences to concurrent sentences. Instead, Purdue asked for the 128 days of accrued time that he served in Bartholomew County Jail awaiting trials or sentencing on Cause Nos. 1030, 1180, and 1246, each of which could have warranted pretrial confinement. Purdue can never be sentenced in connection with the dismissed Cause Nos. 1180 and 1246. In the absence of being granted the relief he now requests, Purdue will never get credit for the 128 days he spent in pretrial confinement while awaiting trial on these three cause numbers. Under the facts of this case, we find that Purdue was awaiting trial on Cause No. 1030 during the entire pretrial confinement from March 10 through the July 16, and that allowing the accrued time of 128 days does not constitute “allow[ing] credit time for time served on wholly unrelated offenses.” [Citation omitted.] The trial court erred in denying Purdue the additional 128 days of accrued time. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions to grant Purdue the initial three days plus an additional 128 days of accrued time and, if appropriate, the comparable number of days of good time credit, and deduct that credit time from the aggregate of Purdue’s consecutive sentences. [Footnote omitted.]
Reversed and remanded.
Mathias, J., and Brown, J., concur.