May, J.
Hakeen Hogan filed a motion asking the trial court “to amend [his] Abstract of Judgment,” … to indicate the court would consider a motion for modification of sentence if Hogan completed a therapeutic community. The trial court interpreted Hogan’s motion as a “Motion for Modification of Sentence” and summarily denied it.
On appeal, Hogan argues the trial court erred by considering his motion to be one requesting modification of his sentence because “[a]ll Hogan was requesting in his motion was for the trial court to amend his abstract of judgment to more accurately reflect [the sentencing judge’s original] intentions.” After considering the Department of Correction’s rules regarding Purposeful Incarceration and the sentencing court’s statements during the sentencing hearing, we agree Hogan’s motion should have been granted, and we reverse and remand for entry of a modified Abstract of Judgment.
…
At his sentencing hearing on December 5, 2012, the trial court sentenced Hogan to forty-six years, with sixteen of those years suspended to probation. At the end of that sentencing hearing, the trial court raised the prospect of placing Hogan in a Department of Correction program for persons involved with drugs …
….
… The trial court entered an Abstract of Judgment that provided:
Court recommends the Defendant be evaluated for and considered for Therapeutic Community. Defendant has a history of substance abuse and chemical addiction and dependence, and appears to be an appropriate candidate for the DOC’s Purposeful Incarceration program.
On November 30, 2016, Hogan filed an “AMENDED MOTION FOR PURPOSEFUL INCARCERATION AND TO AMEND ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT.” Hogan asked the court “to direct the clerk to produce a new Abstract of Judgment, reflecting” Hogan should be placed in the Purposeful Incarceration program. …
On January 9, 2017, without receiving any additional argument or evidence, the trial court entered the following order denying Hogan’s motion:
The defendant, pro se, having filed a [sic] Amended Motion for Purposefful [sic] Incarceration and to Amend Abstract of Judgment, which Motion is in the following words and figures, to-wit: (H.I.); and the court, having regarded the same as a Motion for Modification of Sentence, now denies the defendant’s Motion.
At issue in Hogan’s motion is his ability to participate in a Department of Correction program called Purposeful Incarceration.
In 2009 the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) began a cooperative project with Indiana Court Systems called Purposeful Incarceration (P.I.). The Department works in collaboration with Judges who can sentence chemically addicted offenders and document that they will “consider a sentence modification” should the offender successfully complete an IDOC Therapeutic community. This supports the Department [of] Correction and the Judiciary to get addicted offenders the treatment that they need and work collaboratively to support their successful re-entry into society.
Purposeful Incarceration Overview, www.in.gov/idoc/2798.htm
To so sentence a defendant, the sentencing court must “communicate with the IDOC that this offender is a PI offender.” … In addition, the court
MUST INCLUDE the following language in the sentencing order or abstract of judgment in order for the offender to be identified as a Purposeful Incarceration candidate:
“Upon successful completion of the clinically appropriate substance abuse treatment program as determined by IDOC, the court will consider a modification to this sentence.”
[I]n order for the Indiana Department of Correction to acknowledge the Court’s order for Purposeful Incarceration, the Abstract of Judgment must reflect that the Petitioner is allowed to be placed in Purposeful Incarceration, and that the Court will consider a sentence modification upon the completion of a Therapeutic Community.
On Hogan’s Abstract of Judgment, Judge Frese recommended Hogan be considered for a Therapeutic Community because he is “an appropriate candidate for the DOC’s Purposeful Incarceration program.” (Id. at 6.) Judge Frese did not, however, indicate on that Abstract of Judgment that the court would consider a sentence modification if Hogan successfully completed a therapeutic community.
….
The court’s statements at sentencing clearly indicate it intended Hogan to be eligible for the Purposeful Incarceration program. Because the original Abstract of Judgment was incapable of effectuating that intent, the trial court erred when it denied Hogan’s motion requesting a corrected Abstract of Judgment. We accordingly reverse and remand for entry of a new Abstract of Judgment in accordance with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Barnes, J., and Bradford, J., concur.