Preview:

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. APPELLANT PRO SE: JOSEPH BAUER ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEPHEN R. CARTER

Westville, Indiana

Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana NICOLE M. SCHUSTER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JOSEPH BAUER, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 02A03-0704-PC-164

APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Thomas J. Felts, Judge Cause No. 02C01-0205-FD-326

NOVEMBER 5, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION HOFFMAN, Senior Judge

Defendant-Appellant Joseph Bauer appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence. We affirm. Bauer attempts to raise issues pertaining to the constitutionality of his sentence and the effectiveness of trial counsel. The following issue, however, is dispositive: Whether the trial court erred in denying Bauer's motion to correct erroneous sentence because the issue raised therein did not arise from the face of the sentencing order. On May 9, 2002, Bauer was charged with numerous counts relating to the operation of a vehicle while intoxicated. Included in the charging information were two counts stating that Bauer was a habitual controlled substance offender because he had two previous convictions for operation of a vehicle while intoxicated. On July 21, 2003, Bauer pled guilty to the Class D felony of operating a vehicle while intoxicated and to his status as a habitual controlled substance offender. On the same day, the trial court sentenced Bauer to an aggregate sentence of six years imprisonment, with five and onehalf years suspended. Over three years later, on December 8, 2006, Bauer filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence. The trial court denied the motion, and Bauer now appeals. Bauer's motion to correct erroneous sentence is not an example of clarity, but it appears to raise the single issue of whether his sentence should be set aside because the State failed to comply with Ind. Code

Download Joseph Bauer v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law