Bailey, J.
William J. Woodford (“Woodford”) appeals the trial court’s order modifying his sentence placement, arguing that the court abused its discretion by failing to grant the full relief he sought after he demonstrated exemplary rehabilitative efforts, including remaining free of conduct violations for the entirety of his nearly sixteen-year imprisonment. We remand.
Woodford presents one issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering that the final twelve years of his sentence be served in community corrections, but not reducing his sentence. ….
In 2000, Woodford was convicted of Dealing in Cocaine, as a Class A felony, and Possession of a Controlled Substance, a Class D felony, and adjudicated a habitual offender. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of seventy years in the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). In 2001, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. Woodford v. State, 752 N.E.2d 1278 (Ind. 2001), cert. denied. Woodford was subsequently denied post-conviction relief, and this Court affirmed the post-conviction court’s order. See Woodford v. State, No. 20A04-0202-PC-69, Slip. op. (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2003).
….
On September 28, 2015, Woodford filed a new petition for sentence modification and request to modify his placement to community corrections, drawing the court’s attention to his age (sixty-one), educational achievements, and the fact that he had remained free of conduct violations during his nearly sixteen-year imprisonment. Specifically, Woodford asked the court “to reduce or suspend his sentence to forty (40) years and to place him in a community corrections work release program.” …
A hearing was held December 10, 2015. On January 4, 2016, the trial court declined to reduce Woodford’s sentence, but ordered that his final twelve years be served in community corrections on in-home detention, subject to his acceptance to the program. Woodford appeals.
….
… Indiana’s sentence modification statute was substantially amended in 2014 as part of a broad overhaul of the criminal code. … In 2015, our General Assembly clarified that the sentence modification statute “applies to a person who: (1) commits an offense; or (2) is sentenced; before July 1, 2014.” I.C. § 35-38-1-17(a) (Supp. 2015). …
….
… After Woodford filed his petition for sentence modification, the trial court obtained a conduct report from the DOC and scheduled a hearing. At the hearing, the court expressed uncertainty as to whether it had authority to reduce or suspend Woodford’s sentence, but believed it had authority to modify his placement to community corrections.
On January 4, 2016, the court entered a written order acknowledging Woodford’s lengthy criminal history, but also noting the “number of positive endeavors” Woodford pursued while incarcerated and congratulating him for the “extremely unusual” accomplishment of remaining free of conduct violations for the nearly sixteen years he had been incarcerated. … The court declined to suspend Woodford’s sentence, but ordered that the final twelve years be served in community corrections on in-home detention.
The 2015 sentence modification statute gives the court authority to “reduce or suspend the sentence and impose a sentence that the court was authorized to impose at the time of sentencing.” I.C. § 35-38-1-17(e) (Supp. 2015). Based on our review of the hearing transcript and the court’s written order, it is unclear whether the trial court was operating under the 2015 sentence modification statute when it modified Woodford’s placement rather than reduce or suspend his sentence. Accordingly, we will not review the trial court’s modification order for abuse of discretion as Woodford requests, but instead remand the petition for consideration under Indiana Code § 35-38-1-17 (Supp. 2015).
The trial court had authority to entertain Woodford’s first petition under the latest version of the sentence modification statute. We remand with instructions to hold a new hearing on Woodford’s petition and consider it under the revised statute, Indiana Code § 35-38-1-17 (Supp. 2015).
Remanded.
Bradford, J., and Altice, J., concur.