MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Jun 03 2016, 6:34 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Donald Carter Gregory F. Zoeller
Correctional Industrial Facility Attorney General of Indiana
Pendleton, Indiana
Angela N. Sanchez
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Donald Carter, June 3, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
47A01-1602-CR-247
v. Appeal from the Lawrence
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable William G. Sleva,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
47D02-1012-FB-1396
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 47A01-1602-CR-247 | June 3, 2016 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] Donald Carter, pro se, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct
erroneous sentence. The sole restated issue presented for our review is whether
the trial court abused its discretion in denying Carter’s motion. Finding no
abuse of discretion, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On May 5, 2011, Carter pled guilty to class B felony dealing in
methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced Carter to the Department of
Correction for a term of twelve years. The court awarded him 224 credit days
for time already served. In October 2014, Carter filed a motion for jail time
credit, which was denied by the trial court. In April 2015, Carter filed a second
motion for jail time credit, which was also denied by the trial court. 1
[3] On December 21, 2015, Carter filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence.
Carter alleged that he was entitled to 381 days of credit time rather than the 224
days awarded him by the trial court. The State filed an objection to the motion
and, on January 7, 2016, the trial court denied Carter’s motion. This appeal
ensued.
1
Carter initiated an appeal of that order; however, we dismissed the appeal with prejudice.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 47A01-1602-CR-247 | June 3, 2016 Page 2 of 4
Discussion and Decision
[4] Carter’s motion to correct erroneous sentence was filed pursuant to Indiana
Code Section 35-38-1-15, which provides:
If the convicted person is erroneously sentenced, the mistake
does not render the sentence void. The sentence shall be
corrected after written notice is given to the convicted person.
The convicted person and his counsel must be present when the
corrected sentence is ordered. A motion to correct sentence must
be in writing and supported by a memorandum of law
specifically pointing out the defect in the original sentence.
The purpose of this statute “is to provide 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). A motion to
correct erroneous sentence is appropriate only when the sentencing error is
“clear from the face of the judgment imposing the sentence in light of the
statutory authority. 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. at 787. Sentencing claims that are not facially apparent “may be
raised on direct appeal and, where appropriate, by post-conviction
proceedings.” Id. “Use of the statutory motion to correct sentence should thus
be narrowly confined to claims apparent from the face of the sentencing
judgment, and the ‘facially erroneous’ prerequisite should … be strictly
applied….” Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 47A01-1602-CR-247 | June 3, 2016 Page 3 of 4
[5] We review a trial court’s decision on a motion to correct erroneous sentence
only for an abuse of discretion. Fry v. State, 939 N.E.2d 687, 689 (Ind. Ct. App.
2010). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is against
the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id.
[6] Here, Carter has not included a copy of the trial court’s sentencing order or
judgment of conviction in the record on appeal. However, we can discern from
the chronological case summary that he was sentenced to twelve years executed
for his class B felony conviction, and was awarded 224 credit days for time
served. Carter’s sole claim is that he is actually entitled to 381 credit days for
time served and that his plea agreement provided for an erroneous calculation
of time. However, evaluation of this assertion clearly requires consideration of
information beyond the mere face of the sentencing judgment. Therefore, a
motion to correct erroneous sentence is an improper vehicle for Carter’s claim.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Carter’s motion.
[7] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 47A01-1602-CR-247 | June 3, 2016 Page 4 of 4