MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED
court except for the purpose of establishing Jul 31 2017, 9:35 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jamie C. Carson, Sr. Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Pendleton Correctional Facility Attorney General of Indiana
Pendleton, Indiana
Ian McLean
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jamie C. Carson, Sr., July 31, 2017
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1610-CR-2337
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Lisa F. Borges,
Appellee-Respondent Judge
The Honorable Anne Flannelly,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G04-9910-PC-189843
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-CR-2337 | July 31, 2017 Page 1 of 3
Case Summary
[1] Jamie C. Carson, Sr., appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct
erroneous sentence. Carson claims that the trial court erred in denying his
motion. Finding no error, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On October 28, 1999, Carson committed the crimes, involving two separate
victims, from which this appeal stems. Carson was originally charged with
thirty-seven counts. On November, 30, 2000, the State amended the
information and charged Carson with two counts of class A felony criminal
deviate conduct, class A felony robbery, class A felony attempted robbery, two
counts of class B felony criminal confinement, and class A misdemeanor
carrying a handgun without a license. Following a bench trial, the trial court
found Carson guilty of all seven charges. The trial court imposed an aggregate
sentence of 120 years.
[3] Carson appealed, and this Court affirmed his convictions and sentence. Carson
v. State, No. 49A05-0206-CR-260 (Ind. Ct. App. May 28, 2003), trans. denied.
Thereafter, Carson sought postconviction relief. Another panel of the court
concluded that appellate counsel offered ineffective assistance for failing to
argue that the sentences on counts 4 and 5 violated the consecutive sentencing
statute, and remanded with instructions to enter a sentence of fifty-five years for
counts 4 and 5. Carson v. State, No. 49A05-1502-PC-69, 2015 WL 8479530, at
*12-13 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2015), trans. denied (2016).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-CR-2337 | July 31, 2017 Page 2 of 3
[4] On September 9, 2016, Carson filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence,
claiming that his sentence violated double jeopardy principles. The trial court
denied the motion that same day. This appeal followed.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Carson appeals the trial court’s ruling on his motion to correct erroneous
sentence. Our supreme court has held that
a motion to correct sentence may only be used to correct
sentencing errors that are 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 a trial may not be presented by way of a motion to correct
sentence.
Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 787 (Ind. 2004). We recently held that a
double jeopardy claim does not meet the “erroneous on its face” standard
because it requires consideration of matters outside the face of the sentencing
judgment. Micheau v. State, 74 N.E.3d 567, 569 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans.
denied. Therefore, we affirm.
[6] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-CR-2337 | July 31, 2017 Page 3 of 3
Jamie C. Carson, Sr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion