Opinion
21A-CR-2898
09-06-2022
Jade M. Cook, II, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
Attorney for Appellant Brent R. Dechert Kokomo, Indiana Attorneys for Appellee Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Megan M. Smith Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
Appeal from the Howard Superior Court The Honorable William C. Menges, Jr., Judge Trial Court Cause No. 34D01-1609-F6-95334D01-1702-CM-23134D01-1707-F6-77934D01-1912-CM-3861
Attorney for Appellant Brent R. Dechert Kokomo, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Megan M. Smith Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
RILEY, JUDGE
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[¶1] Appellant-Defendant, Jade Cook (Cook), appeals the trial court's denial of his Motion to Correct Erroneous Sentence.
[¶2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[¶3] Cook presents this court with one issue, which we restate as: Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his Motion to Correct Erroneous Sentence seeking credit time.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[¶4] On July 19, 2018, the trial court sentenced Cook in three separate causes: Cause 34D01-1609-F6-953 (Cause -953); Cause 34D01-1702-CM-231 (Cause -231); and Cause 34D01-1707-F6-799 (Cause -799). In Cause -953, the trial court sentenced Cook to the balance of a previously suspended sentence, 749 days. In Cause -231, Cook was also ordered to serve the remainder of a previously suspended sentence, 187 days. In Cause -779, the trial court sentenced Cook pursuant to a plea agreement to 913 days. The trial court's written sentencing orders provided that all three sentences were to be served on work release. The trial court also ordered Cook to successfully participate in Howard County's Re-Entry Court Program. On January 3, 2019, the trial court released Cook from work release.
[¶5] On December 16, 2019, the State filed an Information in Cause 34D01-1912-CM-3861 (Cause -3861), alleging that Cook had committed two new offenses. Also on December 16, 2019, the trial court held Cook in contempt for violating the terms and conditions of the Re-Entry Court Program in Causes -953, -231, and -799. On December 18, 2019, Cook was arrested on the contempt citation. On January 24, 2020, the trial court terminated Cook from the Re-Entry Court Program in Causes -953, -231, and -779. On January 27, 2020, the trial court ordered Cook into the Re-Entry Court Program in Causes -953, -231, -779, and -3861. On June 11, 2020, Cook was again terminated from the Re-Entry Court Program in all four Causes.
[¶6] On May 19, 2021, the trial court issued sentencing orders following Cook's admission to the State's petitions to revoke his suspended sentences in Causes -953, -231, -779, and -3861. The trial court sentenced Cook as follows:
Cause -953
729 days
64 credit days
Cause -231
187 days
No credit time
Cause -779
577 days
No credit time
Cause -3861
58 days
No credit time
[¶7] On June 18, 2021, Cook filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's May 19, 2021, sentencing orders. On August 30, 2021, Cook filed a motion to dismiss his appeal, averring that "it is apparent that a more clear and accurate record of the issues should be made with the [t]rial [c]ourt and that a Motion to Correct Erroneous Sentence pursuant to I.C. [§] 35-38-1-15 should be filed." (Appellant's App. Vol. IV, p. 94). On September 3, 2021, this court dismissed Cook's appeal with prejudice.
[¶8] On October 1, 2021, Cook filed his Motion to Correct Erroneous Sentence in all four Causes, arguing that he should have received 336 credit days for the period of time that he served on work release between July 19, 2018, and January 3, 2019. Cook contended that the trial court had deprived him of that time because it mistakenly believed that, under the terms of a Drug Court Participation Agreement that Cook had signed on February 28, 2018, as part of an attempted diversion in Causes -953, -231, -779, Cook had waived his right to receive credit time for sentences imposed for violating the rules of the program. Cook further argued that he should have been awarded sixty additional credit days for the time he was incarcerated between December 18, 2019, and January 27, 2020, because he had not yet signed his Re-Entry Court Program Participation Agreement during that period, rendering him eligible for credit time. On December 3, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on Cook's Motion to Correct Erroneous Sentence. Cook had exhibits detailing his incarceration and work release history, his Drug Court Participation Agreement, and his Problem-Solving Court Agreement admitted into evidence. At Cook's request, the trial court also took judicial notice of all the pleadings in each of the four Causes.
[¶9] The trial court ruled that the issues raised by Cook should have been brought on direct appeal and had been waived. However, even if Cook's claims had not been waived, the trial court concluded that Cook was not entitled to credit from July 19, 2018, to January 3, 2019, because he had actually been sentenced to a sober living facility, not work release. As to the period of December 18, 2019, to January 27, 2020, the trial court ruled that Cook was not entitled to sixty additional credit days because he was serving time on a contempt citation. The trial court denied Cook's Motion to Correct Erroneous Sentence.
[¶10] Cook now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[¶11] Cook appeals the trial court's denial of a motion to correct his sentence pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-38-1-15, which provides as follows:
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.
[¶12] A motion to correct erroneous sentence may only be used to correct sentencing errors that are clear from the face of the sentencing judgment in light of statutory authority. Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 787 (Ind. 2004). Claims that require consideration of the proceedings before, during, or after trial may not be presented in a motion to correct erroneous sentence. Id. "Such claims may be raised only on direct appeal, and, where appropriate, by post-conviction proceedings." Id. We review a trial court's denial of a motion to correct erroneous sentence for an abuse of the trial court's discretion. Hobbs v. State, 71 N.E.3d 46, 48 (Ind.Ct.App. 2017), trans. denied.
[¶13] Cook claims that his sentence is erroneous because the trial court inaccurately computed his credit time in its May 19, 2021, sentencing orders and deprived him of 396 credit days. As to his purported earned credit time from July 19, 2018, to January 3, 2019, Cook claimed in his Motion to Correct Erroneous Sentence that he was entitled to 336 credit days because he had not waived his right to earn credit time as part of a Drug Court Participation Agreement that he had executed. On appeal, Cook raises a different claim, namely, that the trial court improperly denied his motion because the court incorrectly believed that he had been sentenced to a sober living facility, not work release, during that time period. However, neither of these theories are properly addressed through a motion to correct erroneous sentence, which, as Cook acknowledges in his appellate brief, is only meant to address sentences that are erroneous on the face of the judgment. See Robinson, 805 N.E.2d at 787. Cook's theories of relief are not discernable through examination of the May 19, 2021, sentencing orders; rather, they mandate examination of matters extrinsic to the sentencing orders such as Cook's Drug Court Participation Agreement and the prior sentencing records in Causes -953, -231, and -779. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cook's motion.
[¶14] We reach the same conclusion as to Cook's second period of claimed credit time from December 18, 2019, to January 27, 2020. Cook's argument is that he had not yet signed his Re-Entry Court Program Participation Agreement when he served that time and that he had not been advised that he would not receive credit time for that period. Addressing these arguments would also entail consideration of matters extrinsic to the trial court's May 19, 2021, sentencing judgments, which we are not allowed to do when reviewing a motion to correct erroneous sentence. See id. As such, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Cook's Motion to Correct Erroneous Sentence.
CONCLUSION
[¶15] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Cook's Motion to Correct Erroneous Sentence because his sentence was not facially erroneous.
[¶16] Affirmed.
[¶17] Bailey, J. and Vaidik, J. concur