MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 10 2015, 10:02 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Lennard Coleman, Sr Gregory F. Zoeller
Michigan City, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Pro-Se
Christina D. Pace
Deputy Attorney General
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Lennard Coleman, Sr., November 10, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
79A05-1506-CR-635
v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Thomas H. Busch,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
79D02-0503-FB-18
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1506-CR-635 | November 10, 2015 Page 1 of 4
[1] In 2005, Lennard Coleman, Sr., was sentenced to the maximum term of twenty
years1 for Class B felony Robbery While Armed with a Deadly Weapon, 2 and
such sentence was enhanced by thirty years based upon his status as a Habitual
Offender.3 In this appeal, Coleman, pro se, challenges the trial court’s denial of
his motion to correct erroneous sentence.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] In 2005, Coleman was convicted of robbery while armed with a deadly weapon
and found to be a habitual offender. Coleman appealed his conviction and
sentence to this court, challenging his pretrial identification as improper and
arguing that his sentence was inappropriate. Appellant’s Appendix at 75-84. This
court affirmed Coleman’s conviction and sentence. Id. On April 22, 2015,
Coleman filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence and the State filed its
response thereto on April 30, 2015. The trial court entered an order denying
1
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5(a) (“A person who commits a Class B felony (for a crime committed before July 1,
2014) shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between six (6) and twenty (20) years, with the advisory
sentence being ten (10) years.”).
2
Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1. Effective July 1, 2014, this offense was reclassified as a Level 3 felony. Because
Coleman committed this offense prior to that date, it retains its prior classification as a Class B felony.
3
I.C. § 35-50-2-8 (“The court shall sentence a person found to be a habitual offender to an additional fixed
term that is not less than the advisory sentence for the underlying offense nor more than three (3) times the
advisory sentence for the underlying offense. However, the additional sentence may not exceed thirty (30)
years.”).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1506-CR-635 | November 10, 2015 Page 2 of 4
Coleman’s motion to correct erroneous sentence on May 18, 2015. Coleman
now appeals.
Discussion & Decision
[4] When reviewing the denial of a motion to correct erroneous sentence, we will
review the court’s decision for an abuse of discretion. Felder v. State, 870
N.E.2d 554, 560 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). An abuse of discretion will be found
only when the trial court’s decision is against the logic and effect of the facts
and circumstances before it.” Id. Further, we note that a motion to correct
sentence may be used only to correct sentencing errors that are clear from the
face of the judgment imposing the sentence in light of the statutory authority.
Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 787 (Ind. 2004). Claims that require
consideration of the proceedings before, during, or after trial may not be
presented by way of a motion to correct sentence. Id. Our Supreme Court has
clarified that the narrow confines of this rule are to be strictly applied. Id.
[5] Coleman’s challenges to the merits of his sentence are not alleged errors limited
to the face of the sentencing judgment. Coleman challenges the aggravating
and mitigating factors identified by the trial court, the weight accorded thereto,
and the adequacy of the trial court’s sentencing statement. Coleman also
argues that there are additional mitigating factors that were supported by the
record and that the trial court improperly ordered his thirty-year sentence for his
status as a habitual offender to run consecutively to his twenty-year sentence for
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1506-CR-635 | November 10, 2015 Page 3 of 4
robbery. All of Coleman’s claims would require the court to go beyond the face
of the sentencing judgment.
[6] To this end, we note that Coleman’s sentence is not facially erroneous.
Coleman was sentenced to twenty years for his Class B felony robbery
conviction and the trial court ordered that such sentence “shall be enhanced by
thirty years for defendant being a Habitual Offender.” Appellant’s Appendix at 2.
At the time Coleman was sentenced, the maximum term for a Class B felony
was twenty years, with an advisory sentence of ten years. See I.C. § 35-50-2-
5(a). The habitual offender statute, I.C. § 35-50-2-8, provided for an
enhancement of the underlying sentence of up to thirty years for being a
habitual offender. Imposition of the maximum sentence does not make
Coleman’s sentence erroneous.
[7] Coleman also argues that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
in his direct appeal and that he was mentally ill and thus unable to knowingly
and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial with respect to his habitual
offender enhancement. These arguments are not properly brought before the
court through a motion to correct erroneous sentence. We therefore affirm the
trial court’s denial of Coleman’s motion to correct erroneous sentence.
[8] Judgment affirmed.
[9] Riley, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1506-CR-635 | November 10, 2015 Page 4 of 4