Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 10-20-2020
Case Style:
Tyree Thomas v. State of Indiana
Case Number: 20A-CR-01148
Judge: Rudolph Pyle III
Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Plaintiff's Attorney: Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Attorney General of Indiana
Josiah Swinney
Deputy Attorney General
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
Indianapolis, IN - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant Tyree Thomas for correcting erroneous sentence.
[3] In October 2018, the State charged Thomas with Level 5 felony battery with a
deadly weapon. In December 2018, Thomas and the State entered into a plea
agreement wherein Thomas pled guilty as charged. According to the plea
agreement:
The parties are free to argue for an appropriate sentence, but the
parties agree that the initial executed sentence will be capped at
three (3) years with placement open to the Court. All other terms,
including any term of probation is open to the Court.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1148 | October 20, 2020 Page 3 of 5
(App. Vol. 2 at 18). Thereafter, the trial court imposed a five-year sentence
with two years executed in the Department of Correction, one year in
community corrections, and two years suspended with one year of probation.
[4] In May 2020, Thomas filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence. In his
motion, Thomas challenged the executed portion of his sentence, arguing that
his sentence exceeded the sentencing cap of three years. The trial court denied
Thomas’ motion to correct erroneous sentence. Thomas now appeals.
Decision
[5] Thomas appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct erroneous
sentence. We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to correct erroneous
sentence for an abuse of discretion, which 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).
[6] An inmate who believes that he has been erroneously sentenced may file a
motion to correct the sentence pursuant to INDIANA CODE § 35-38-1-15.
Neff v. State, 888 N.E.2d 1249, 1250-51 (Ind. 2008). This statute 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.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1148 | October 20, 2020 Page 4 of 5
“The purpose of the 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) (quoting Gaddie
v. State, 566 N.E.2d 535, 537 (Ind. 1991)).
[7] A statutory motion to correct erroneous 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.” Robinson, 805 N.E.2d at 787.
“Such claims may be resolved by considering only the face of the judgment and
the applicable statutory authority without reference to other matters in or
extrinsic to the record.” Fulkrod v. State, 855 N.E.2d 1064, 1066 (Ind. Ct. App.
2006). If a claim requires consideration of the proceedings before, during, or
after trial, it may not be presented by way of a motion to correct erroneous
sentence. Robinson, 805 N.E.2d at 787. “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
henceforth be strictly applied[.]” Id.
[8] Here, Thomas appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct erroneous
sentence, but he does not argue that the sentencing error is clear from the face
of the judgment. Rather, he argues that “the trial court violated the plea
agreement in this matter when it went outside the prescribed ‘cap’ of 3 years
total.” (Thomas’ Br. 5). We agree with the State that “[t]he sentencing error of
which Thomas complains is not clear from the face of the judgment.” (State’s
Br. 7). Because the error Thomas alleges is not clear from the face of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1148 | October 20, 2020 Page 5 of 5
sentencing order, it is not appropriate for a motion to correct erroneous
sentence. See Robinson, 805 N.E.2d at 787. Accordingly, Thomas has failed to
show that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion, and we
affirm the trial court’s judgment. See, e.g., Bauer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 744, 746
(Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (affirming the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion
to correct erroneous sentence where the defendant’s claims required
consideration of matters in the record outside of the face of the judgment and
were, accordingly, not the types of claims properly presented in a motion to
correct erroneous sentence), trans. denied.
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: