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.

PRO SE APPELLANT: LESTER D. FRENCH Michigan City, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana MONIKA PREKOPA TALBOT Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
LESTER D. FRENCH, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 33A04-0605-CR-235

APPEAL FROM THE HENRY CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Mary G. Willis, Judge Cause No. 74-CR-27

October 2, 2006 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION VAIDIK, Judge

Case Summary Lester D. French, pro se, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to correct sentence. Because the claims in French's motion to correct sentence require

consideration of matters outside the face of the sentencing judgment, the claims are not appropriate for such a motion. We therefore affirm the trial court. Facts and Procedural History The underlying facts of this case, taken from the Indiana Supreme Court's 1977 opinion in French's direct appeal, are as follows: [T]he evidence at trial revealed that at about 5:00 p.m., July 22, 1974, the Appellant robbed the family grocery store of Pauline Hart in Summitville, Indiana. During the course of the robbery, Mrs. Hart's granddaughter, Kathy Wylie, entered the store. When the Appellant took money and two cartons of cigarettes from the store, he also took Miss Wylie. The Appellant and his captive emerged from the store and entered a waiting automobile driven by Charles L. Martin. Martin testified at trial that he and the Appellant both had sexual intercourse with Miss Wylie in the car during the course of their drive. "(T)oo scared to say anything," she was also sodomized by the Appellant. After some period of time, the Appellant indicated to Martin that they had to "get rid" of their victim. The car was stopped. Each man took his turn at bludgeoning the girl with a pipe wrench. When she still exhibited signs of life, she was rolled down a river embankment. Her head was held beneath the water until her struggling stopped. Pathological examination of the decedent established asphyxia due to drowning as the cause of death. French v. State, 266 Ind. 276, 362 N.E.2d 834, 836 (1977). A grand jury indicted

French for first-degree murder while engaged in the commission of a kidnapping; kidnapping; commission of a felony (robbery) while armed; commission of a felony (rape) while armed; and carrying a handgun without a license. Id. Following a 1975 jury trial, French was found guilty of all five counts. Id. The trial court sentenced French to 2

death for his murder conviction, life imprisonment for his kidnapping conviction, fifteen years imprisonment for each of his armed felony convictions, and six months imprisonment for his conviction of carrying a handgun without a license. Id. The trial court ordered the terms of imprisonment to run consecutively. Id. On direct appeal, our Supreme Court vacated French's death sentence and imposed a life sentence instead. Id. at 842. The court otherwise affirmed his convictions. In 1979, French filed a motion to correct sentence, which was withdrawn and re-filed in 1982. French v. State, 547 N.E.2d 1084, 1085 (Ind. 1989). This resulted in the trial court vacating French's life sentence for kidnapping. Id. In 1983, French filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court. Id. However, this was dismissed for the reason that he had not exhausted his state remedies. Id. In 1985, French filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied. Supreme Court affirmed the post-conviction court. Id. at 1088. In 2002, French filed a motion to correct sentence, which the trial court denied. In 2006, French again filed a motion to correct sentence. The trial court denied the motion that same day, noting it was a successive motion. French, pro se, now appeals. Discussion and Decision French, pro se, contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to correct sentence. French's motion to correct sentence derives from Indiana Code

Download Lester D. French v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law