Sec. 1. (a) The court may suspend any part of a
sentence for a misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), whenever the court
suspends in whole or in part a sentence for a Class A, Class B, or Class
C misdemeanor, it may place the person on probation under IC 35-38-2
for a fixed period of not more than one (1) year, notwithstanding the
maximum term of imprisonment for the misdemeanor set forth in
sections 2 through 4 of this chapter. However, the combined term of
imprisonment and probation for a misdemeanor may not exceed one (1)
year.
(c) Whenever the court suspends a sentence for a misdemeanor, if
the court finds that the use or abuse of alcohol, drugs, or harmful
substances is a contributing factor or a material element of the offense,
the court may place the person on probation under IC 35-38-2 for a
fixed period of not more than two (2) years. However, a court may not
place a person on probation for a period of more than twelve (12)
months in the absence of a report that substantiates the need for a
period of probation that is longer than twelve (12) months for the
purpose of completing a course of substance abuse treatment. A
probation user's fee that exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the maximum
probation user's fee allowed under IC 35-38-2-1 may not be required
beyond the first twelve (12) months of probation.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.8. Amended by Acts
1977, P.L.340, SEC.123; P.L.5-1988, SEC.210; P.L.135-1993, SEC.9;
P.L.90-2001, SEC.1; P.L.1-2002, SEC.152.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
37
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case:
Jennings v. State, 956 N.E.2d 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
Jennings v. State, 956 N.E.2d 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 18× “” Ind.Code § 35-50-3-1(b) (2004). Here, Jennings received the maximum 180-day sentence, with thirty days executed and 150 days suspended, and 360 days of probation.”
Kathleen K. Peterink v. State of Indiana, 971 N.E.2d 735 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 20× “Is the sentence imposed contrary to Ind. Code Ann. § 35-50-3-1 (West, Westlaw current through legislation effective May 31, 2012)? 2.”
Datzek v. State, 838 N.E.2d 1149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 8× “Code § 35-50-3-1(c) applies, and Ind. Code § 35-50-3-1 (b), including the one-year maximum combined term of imprisonment and probation, is inapplicable.”
Beck v. State, 790 N.E.2d 520 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 6× “Under Indiana Code section 35-50-3-1, when a trial court suspends any part of a misdemeanor sentence, it may place the defendant on probation for a period of not more than one year.”
Edwin Jones v. State of Indiana, 982 N.E.2d 417 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 6× “” In addition, Ind. Code § 35-50-3-1 (b) provides in part that: [W]henever the court suspends in whole or in part a sentence for a Class A, Class B, or Class C misdemeanor, it may place the person on probation under IC 35-38-2 for a fixed period of not more than one (1) year,…”
Andrew Wann v. State of Indiana, 997 N.E.2d 1103 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 10× ““For the purpose of Indiana Code § 35-50-3-1, ‘term of imprisonment’ means the total amount of time a misde-meanant is incarcerated.”
Jennings v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 10× “On rehearing, the State insists that our interpretation of Indiana Code section 35-50-3-1 (b) “irreconcilably conflicts with our [s]upreme [cjourt’s decision in Smith v.”
Fry v. State, 939 N.E.2d 687 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “Fry argues that his sentence is illegal and cites to Ind.Code § 35-50-3-1. Ind. Code § 35-50-3-1 (b) provides in part: [WJlhenevér the court suspends in whole or in part a sentence for a Class A, Class B, or Class C misdemeanor, it may place the person on probation under IC…”
Travis Koontz v. State of Indiana, 975 N.E.2d 846 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 10× “Indiana Code section 35-50-3-1 provides, in pertinent part: (a) The court may suspend any part of a sentence for a misdemeanor.”
Collins v. State, 835 N.E.2d 1010 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “*1018 Here, I.C. § 35-50-3-1 provides an affirmative statutory proscription on the imposition of any sentence, regardless of its composition, in excess of one year.”
Shaffer v. State, 755 N.E.2d 1193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 7× “[4] In order to avoid the possibility of an individual receiving a longer term of imprisonment than originally bargained for in the plea agreement, I strongly urge the defendant and the State to carefully draft the terms contained in the agreement to adequately reflect the true…”
Joey Jennings v. State of Indiana, 982 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind. 2013).
· cites it 4× “Conclusion For the purpose of Indiana Code § 35-50-3-1, “term of imprisonment” means the total amount of time a misdemeanant is incarcerated.”
— Ind. Code § 35-50-3-1(a) — 2 cases
— Ind. Code § 35-50-3-1(b) — 19 cases
Jennings v. State, 956 N.E.2d 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
“” Ind.Code § 35-50-3-1(b) (2004). Here, Jennings received the maximum 180-day sentence, with thirty days executed and 150 days suspended, and 360 days of probation.”
Kathleen K. Peterink v. State of Indiana, 971 N.E.2d 735 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
“Is the sentence imposed contrary to Ind. Code Ann. § 35-50-3-1 (West, Westlaw current through legislation effective May 31, 2012)? 2.”
Datzek v. State, 838 N.E.2d 1149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“Code § 35-50-3-1(c) applies, and Ind. Code § 35-50-3-1 (b), including the one-year maximum combined term of imprisonment and probation, is inapplicable.”
Jennings v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
“On rehearing, the State insists that our interpretation of Indiana Code section 35-50-3-1 (b) “irreconcilably conflicts with our [s]upreme [cjourt’s decision in Smith v.”
Travis Koontz v. State of Indiana, 975 N.E.2d 846 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
“Indiana Code section 35-50-3-1 provides, in pertinent part: (a) The court may suspend any part of a sentence for a misdemeanor.”
— Ind. Code § 35-50-3-1(c) — 2 cases
Datzek v. State, 838 N.E.2d 1149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“Code § 35-50-3-1(c) applies, and Ind. Code § 35-50-3-1 (b), including the one-year maximum combined term of imprisonment and probation, is inapplicable.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.