MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Feb 09 2018, 10:37 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
precedent or cited before any court except for the Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Bradley D. Musselman Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Westville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Justin F. Roebel
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Bradley D. Musselman, February 9, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
09A02-1707-CR-1726
v. Appeal from the Cass Superior
Court.
The Honorable Richard A.
State of Indiana, Maughmer, Judge.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No.
09D02-1502-F4-7
Barteau, Senior Judge
Statement of the Case
[1] Bradley D. Musselman appeals the denial of his motion to correct erroneous
sentence. We affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1707-CR-1726 | February 9, 2018 Page 1 of 4
Issue
[2] Musselman raises one issue, which we restate as: whether the trial court abused
its discretion in denying his motion.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] The State charged Musselman with numerous criminal offenses. During plea
negotiations, the parties initially submitted a plea agreement to the court.
Pursuant to that agreement, Musselman would have pled guilty to dealing in
methamphetamine, a Level 4 felony, and neglect of a dependent, a Level 6
felony. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss other pending charges and
further agreed to a maximum sentence of eight years.
[4] According to the Chronological Case Summary, the parties withdrew that
agreement and later submitted a second agreement. Under the second
agreement, Musselman agreed to plead guilty to dealing in methamphetamine
and neglect of a dependent, but his maximum sentence would be capped at
twelve years. The trial court accepted the second plea agreement and imposed
a sentence. Musselman did not appeal.
[5] On July 17, 2017, Musselman filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence.
The court denied Musselman’s motion without a hearing, and this appeal
followed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1707-CR-1726 | February 9, 2018 Page 2 of 4
Discussion and Decision
[6] When a convicted person is erroneously sentenced, he or she may file a motion
to correct erroneous sentence identifying the error and asking the court to
correct it. Ind. Code § 35-38-1-15 (1983). The Indiana Supreme Court has
clarified that a motion to correct erroneous sentence may address only errors
that are found on the face of the sentencing document. Neff v. State, 888 N.E.2d
1249, 1251 (Ind. 2008) (quotation omitted). Sentencing errors that require
examination of matters beyond the face of the sentencing document must be
addressed via direct appeal or post-conviction relief. Id.
[7] We review the grant or denial of a motion to correct erroneous sentence for an
abuse of discretion. Woodcox v. State, 30 N.E.3d 748, 750 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is against the logic
and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Davis v. State, 978 N.E.2d
470, 472 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
[8] Here, Musselman argued in his motion to correct erroneous sentence that the
trial court should not have accepted the withdrawal of the first plea agreement
and that he was entitled to be sentenced under its terms rather than the terms of
the second agreement. Addressing this claim would necessarily require an
examination of the facts and circumstances under which the plea agreements
were negotiated and presented to the trial court, as well as the court’s reasoning
in allowing the first plea agreement to be withdrawn. In other words,
Musselman presented a claim that would have required the trial court to look
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1707-CR-1726 | February 9, 2018 Page 3 of 4
beyond the face of the sentencing order. His argument is not properly presented
by way of a motion to correct erroneous sentence, and we cannot say the court
abused its discretion in denying it. See Godby v. State, 976 N.E.2d 1235, 1236
(Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (no error in denying motion to correct erroneous sentence;
appellant presented sentencing claim that would have required an examination
of the sentencing hearing).
Conclusion
[9] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
[10] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1707-CR-1726 | February 9, 2018 Page 4 of 4