Pyle, J.
Statement of the Case
David Simons (“Simons”) appeals his sentence imposed following his guilty plea to Level 2 felony burglary while armed with a deadly weapon and Level 5 felony intimidation. Simons does not challenge the actual sentence imposed; instead, he argues that the trial court erred by failing to advise him of his earliest release date and maximum possible release date pursuant to I.C. § 35-38-1-1(b). Concluding that the trial court’s failure to advise Simons of his possible release dates was harmless error, we affirm his sentence.
We affirm.
….
Simons argues that the trial court erred by failing to advise him of his earliest release date and maximum possible release date pursuant to I.C. § 35-38-1-1(b). He asserts that he was “entitled to such an advisement” and requests that we remand this case “so that the trial court can comply with this statute.” (Simons’ Br. 1, 2).
I.C. § 35-38-1-1(b) provides that when a trial court pronounces a defendant’s sentence, “the court shall advise the person that the person is sentenced for not less than the earliest release date and for not more than the maximum possible release date.” (Emphasis added).
The State acknowledges the language of the statute and that the trial court did not advise Simons of any possible release dates. The State, however, argues that “Simons failed to identify any prejudice resulting from the lack of such an advisement, and therefore was not entitled to any relief under Appellate Rule 66(A).” We agree.
….
Here, as in Hines, Simons has not alleged that he was prejudiced or harmed by the trial court’s failure to advise him of his earliest release date and maximum possible release date. Although the trial court did not make the advisement as set forth in I.C. § 35-38-1-1(b), such failure was harmless error. See, e.g., Hines, 856 N.E.2d at 1284-85. Nonetheless, when a statute uses the word “shall” it is considered “mandatory language creating a statutory right to a particular outcome after certain conditions are met.” Taylor v. State, 7 N.E.3d. 362, 365 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). As a result, such an advisement is statutorily required when a sentence is pronounced by Indiana’s trial courts. Each case is different, and the facts of another case might not lead to the same harmless error result. But here, we affirm Simons’ sentence.
Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Riley, J., concur.