FILED
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before
Sep 21 2012, 9:17 am
any court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
KEITH A. WHITE GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Pendleton, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
J.T. WHITEHEAD
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
KEITH A. WHITE, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 79A02-1204-CR-312
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE TIPPECANOE SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Thomas K. Milligan, Senior Judge
Cause No. 79D01-0302-FA-15
September 21, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY, Judge
Keith White appeals the denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence. We
affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 9, 2004, White pled guilty to two counts of Class B felony dealing in
cocaine.1 On September 8, 2006, the trial court sentenced him to ten years for each count, to
be served consecutively. White appealed his conviction and sentence, and we affirmed the
trial court’s decision. White v. State, 79A02-0610-CR-920 (Ind. Ct. App. February 7, 2007),
trans. denied.
On March 15, 2012, White filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence. The trial
court denied his motion without a hearing on March 26.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
A motion to correct erroneous sentence may be filed to address a sentence that is
“erroneous on its face.” Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 786 (Ind. 2004). Claims that
require consideration of the proceedings before, during, or after the trial may not be
presented in a motion to correct erroneous sentence. Id. at 787. Such claims are best
addressed on direct appeal or as part of a petition for post-conviction relief if applicable. Id.
A ruling on a motion to correct an erroneous sentence is subject to normal appellate
procedures. Id. at 786.
We note White appears pro se. Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as
licensed attorneys, and are required to follow our procedural rules. Evans v. State, 809
1
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.
2
N.E.2d 338, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. In his petition, White argued his
sentence was erroneous because:
[The] trial court’s sentencing order is insufficient to support consecutive
sentencing due to petitioner’s guilty plea called him to plead guilty to
consecutive sentences in drug offenses . . . prior to the trial court clearly stating
that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances [and
the] trial court found no mitigators. Notwithstanding, the trial court could
have considered petitioner’s age at the time of drug offense as a mitigators
[sic]; the Trial Court could have also considered petitioner’s guilty plea and
the substantial benefit that he extended the state as mitigators.
(App. at 2) (grammatical errors in original).
Because a motion to correct erroneous sentence may be utilized only when the trial
court need not consider proceedings before, during, or after trial, we may not address White’s
motion. See Robinson, 805 N.E.2d at 786 (appellate court may not review proceedings
before, during, or after trial to determine if trial court erred when denying motion to correct
erroneous sentence); see also Jones v. State, 544 N.E.2d 492, 496 (Ind. 1989) (issues
concerning how the trial court weighed factors in sentencing are not included as possible
theories for relief pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-38-1-15, which governs motions to correct
erroneous sentences). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of his motion to correct erroneous
sentence.
Affirmed.
KIRSCH, J., and NAJAM, J., concur.
3