Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before
any court except for the purpose of FILED
establishing the defense of res judicata, Aug 09 2012, 9:03 am
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:
ROBERT OLDHAM GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Pendleton, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
J.T. WHITEHEAD
Deputy Attorney General
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
ROBERT OLDHAM, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1106-CR-633
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Lisa F. Borges, Judge
The Honorable Stanley E. Kroh, Commissioner
Cause No. 49G04-0606-MR-106634
August 9, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAILEY, Judge
Case Summary
Robert D. Oldham appeals the denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence. We
affirm.
Issue
The sole issue for our review is whether the trial court properly denied Oldham’s
motion.
Facts and Procedural History
In 2007, Oldham was convicted in a bench trial of involuntary manslaughter and
carrying a handgun without a license. The trial court sentenced him to forty years
imprisonment. This Court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal in 2008. Oldham v.
State, No. 49A05-0709-CR-500, (Ind. Ct. App. April 11, 2008), trans. denied. In 2011,
Oldham, appearing pro se, filed a Motion to Correct Erroneous Sentence wherein he argued
that the trial court used improper aggravators to enhance his sentence. The trial court denied
the motion, and Oldham appeals.
Discussion and Decision
A motion to correct erroneous sentence is a statutory remedy that provides prompt,
direct access to an uncomplicated legal process for correcting the occasional erroneous or
illegal sentence. Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 785 (Ind. 2004) (citing Gaddie v. State,
566 N.E.2d 535, 537 (Ind. 1991)). It is appropriate, however, only when the sentence is
erroneous on its face. Robinson, at 787. This statutory remedy is not available when the
claim requires consideration of matters outside the face of the sentencing judgment or
2
proceedings before, during or after trial. Id. For sentencing claims that are not facially
apparent, the motion to correct erroneous sentence is an improper remedy. Id. Such claims
may be raised only on direct appeal and, where appropriate, by post-conviction proceedings.
Id.
Here, Oldham’s arguments require us to consider matters outside the face of the
sentencing judgment, such as the transcript of the sentencing hearing. Accordingly, Oldham
had no basis for filing a motion to correct erroneous sentence, and the trial court properly
denied it. See Hakim v. State, 806 N.E.2d 774, 775 (Ind. 2004) (concluding that where
Hakim had no basis for filing a motion to correct erroneous sentence, the trial court properly
denied a motion to correct error under the Indiana Supreme Court’s holding in Robinson).
Affirmed.
RILEY, J., and CRONE, J., concur.
3
Robert Oldham v. State of Indiana
Combined Opinion