Appellant pro se Attorneys for Appellee
Lloyd F. Laycock Stephen R. Carter
Bunker Hill, Indiana Attorney General
Gary Damon Secrest
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
____________________________________________________________________________
__
In the
Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________
No. 11S04-0403-PC-117
Floyd F. Laycock, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
State of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
_________________________________
Appeal from the Clay Circuit Court, No. 11C01-9202-CF-11
The Honorable Ernest E. Yelton, Judge
_________________________________
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 11A04-0305-
PC-245
_________________________________
Appellant Pro Se Attorneys for Appellee
Teodoro V. Garcia Stephen R. Carter
Bunker Hill, Indiana Attorney General
Gary Damon Secrest
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
____________________________________________________________________________
__
No. 45S03-0403-PC-116
Teodoro V. Garcia,
Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
State of Indiana,
Appellee (Plaintiff below).
_________________________________
Appeal from the Lake Superior Court, No. 45D02-9107-CF-147
The Honorable Clarence D. Murray, Judge
_________________________________
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 45A03-0305-
PC-198
_________________________________
Appellant pro se Attorney for Appellee
James F. Glass, Sr. Stephen R. Carter
Bunker Hill, Indiana Attorney General
____________________________________________________________________________
__
No. 49S02-0403-PC-115
James F. Glass, Sr., Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
State of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
_________________________________
Appeal from the Marion Criminal Court, No. CR87-122 F
The Honorable Jane Magnus Stinson, Judge
_________________________________
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-0307-
PC-636
_________________________________
March 10, 2004
Dickson, Justice.
We address these three cases in a single consolidated opinion because
of their procedural similarity and because they present the same issue.
Defendants Floyd F. Laycock, Teodoro V. Garcia, and James F. Glass each
seek transfer from an order of the Court of Appeals dismissing their
respective appeals. Each appeal sought to challenge the denial of a motion
to correct sentence, challenging the trial court's failure to designate on
the abstract of judgment the amount of credit time earned for pre-sentence
confinement. In each of these cases, the defendants had previously
completed a post-conviction proceeding. Treating the motions to correct
sentence as successive petitions for post-conviction relief, the Court of
Appeals dismissed the appeals on grounds that the defendants each failed to
comply with Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(12), which permits the filing of
such successive petitions only upon prior authorization by the court. As
to each case, we grant transfer and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
As we hold today in Robinson v. State, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 2004), a
motion to correct sentence pursuant to Indiana Code § 35-38-1-1 asserting a
claim that is susceptible to determination from the face of the sentencing
judgment is not in the nature of a post-conviction proceeding and is not
subject to the requirement for prior authorization in P-C R. 1(2). Id. at
___ (slip opin. at 5). The defendants' appeals are not subject to
dismissal on this ground.
Each of these appeals is grounded upon the claim that the trial
court's entries on the Department of Correction's abstract of judgment form
violated Indiana Code § 35-38-3-2(a) which requires the sentencing judgment
to include the time spent in pre-sentence confinement and also the amount
of credit time earned for said confinement. Each defendant's appeal
complains only of this omission in the abstract of judgment and does not
allege any omission in the trial court's sentencing judgment. Entries in
the abstract of judgment may not be challenged by a motion to correct
sentence. Robinson v. State, ___ N.E.2d at ___ (slip opinion at 14-15).
For this reason, the trial courts did not err in rejecting the motion to
correct sentence filed by each of these defendants
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in each case.
Shepard, C.J., and Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.