MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
May 25 2016, 6:11 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
regarded as precedent or cited before any and Tax Court
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Terry Criss Gregory F. Zoeller
Pendleton, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Brian Reitz
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Terry Criss, May 25, 2016
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1511-CR-1944
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Grant W.
Appellee-Respondent Hawkins, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
CR-86025E
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1511-CR-1944 | May 25, 2016 Page 1 of 3
[1] Terry Criss appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct erroneous
sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.
[2] On July 7, 1986, Criss pleaded guilty to murder, class A felony burglary, two
counts of class B felony criminal confinement, class B felony burglary, and class
D felony theft. On October 15, 1986, the trial court sentenced Criss to an
aggregate term of 124 years imprisonment. Criss filed a petition for post-
conviction relief in July 1990, which the post-conviction court denied in
February 1991. On October 8, 2015, Criss filed a motion to correct erroneous
sentence. The trial court denied the motion the day after it was filed. Criss
now appeals.
[3] We review a ruling on a motion to correct erroneous sentence for an abuse of
discretion. Davis v. State, 978 N.E.2d 470, 472 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). A motion
to correct erroneous sentence may only be used to correct sentencing errors that
are apparent from the face of the sentencing order. Robinson v. State, 805
N.E.2d 783, 787 (Ind. 2004). As a result, claims that require consideration of
the proceedings before, during, or after trial do not warrant relief. Id.
[4] Here, Criss raises four arguments in his motion to correct erroneous sentence:
(1) alleged prosecutorial misconduct during trial renders the sentence unfair; (2)
he did not knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty; (3) there was an insufficient
factual basis supporting his guilty plea; and (4) his sentences violate the
prohibition against double jeopardy. Each of these arguments requires
consideration of the proceedings before, during, or after trial. There are no
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1511-CR-1944 | May 25, 2016 Page 2 of 3
sentencing errors apparent on the face of the sentencing order. As a result, the
trial court did not err by denying Criss’s motion to correct erroneous sentence.
[5] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
May, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1511-CR-1944 | May 25, 2016 Page 3 of 3