Opinion
24A-CR-276
06-24-2024
Jason C. Hensley, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
APPELLANT PRO SE Jason C. Hensley Michigan City, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Kathy Bradley Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Elkhart Superior Court The Honorable Gretchen S. Lund, Judge The Honorable Eric S. Ditton, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 20D04-1806-F5-180
APPELLANT PRO SE Jason C. Hensley Michigan City, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Kathy Bradley Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Judges Kenworthy and Felix concur.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Riley, Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[¶1] Appellant-Defendant, Jason C. Hensley (Hensley), appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence.
[¶2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[¶3] Hensley presents this court with one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to correct erroneous sentence.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[¶4] On August 12, 2018, Hensley pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle while suspended for life, a Level 5 felony, and resisting law enforcement, a Level 6 felony. On September 19, 2018, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of four years with three years suspended to probation. A first probation violation was filed on October 17, 2018, barely one month after sentencing. On May 14, 2019, the trial court found the violation proven. After a sanctions hearing on June 5, 2019, the trial court released Hensley on time served and returned him to probation. On April 30, 2021, the State filed a second notice of probation violation, and a warrant was issued for Hensley's arrest. Hensley admitted to the violation on September 28, 2022. The trial court revoked his probation and ordered him to serve his sentence in the Department of Correction (DOC) with a recommendation to the Elkhart Community Corrections electronic monitoring program. On January 17, 2023, a community corrections violation petition was filed, which Hensley admitted to. On July 17, 2023, the trial court revoked his placement in community corrections and ordered him to serve the balance of his remaining sentence in the DOC.
[¶5] On December 27, 2023, Hensley filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence, alleging that he was previously released from his sentence in 2019 and that the trial court erroneously ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence after his sentence had been deemed complete. In support of his contention, Hensley included several attachments with his motion, including a chronological case summary for the instant Cause and for cause number 20D04-1805-F5-141, as well as signed terms of probation. On January 5, 2024, the trial court denied the motion.
[¶6] Hensley now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[¶7] At the outset, we note that Hensley has elected to proceed pro se. It is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same legal standards as licensed attorneys. Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004), trans. denied. Thus, pro se litigants are bound to follow the established rules of procedure and must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so. Id. "We will not become a party's advocate, nor will we address arguments that are inappropriate, improperly expressed, or too poorly developed to be understood." Barrett v. State, 837 N.E.2d 1022, 1030 (Ind.Ct.App. 2005), trans. denied.
[¶8] Hensley appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-38-1-15. 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).
[¶9] An inmate who believes he has been erroneously sentenced may file a motion to correct the sentence pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-38-1-15. Neff v. State, 888 N.E.2d 1249, 1250-51 (Ind. 2008). This statute provides that:
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.
"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)). However, 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. Such claims are best addressed on direct appeal or by way of a petition for post-conviction relief where applicable. Id. "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.
[¶10] Here, Hensley's motion to correct erroneous sentence contended that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in the DOC because his sentence in this Cause had been "terminated" in a prior probation revocation proceeding on June 5, 2019. (Appellant's App. Vol. II, p. 30). In support, Hensley encouraged us to revisit the chronological case summary and the transcript of the June 5, 2019 hearing as "the appropriate record[s] to ascertain the trial court's intention to terminate" the sentence in this Cause. (Appellant's Br. p. 24). Accordingly, as the error that Hensley alleges is not clear from the face of the sentencing order in his most recent probation violation determination, the issue is not appropriate for a motion to correct erroneous sentence. Robinson, 805 N.E.2d at 787. Because Hensley has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion, 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 the face of the judgment and were, accordingly, not the types of claims properly presented in a motion to correct erroneous sentence), trans. denied.
CONCLUSION
[¶11] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hensley's motion to correct erroneous sentence.
[¶12] Affirmed.
Kenworthy, J. and Felix, J. concur.