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.

FILED
Aug 09 2012, 9:03 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

APPELLANT PRO SE: ROBERT OLDHAM Pendleton, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana J.T. WHITEHEAD Deputy Attorney General

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

No. 49A02-1106-CR-633

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Lisa F. Borges, Judge The Honorable Stanley E. Kroh, Commissioner Cause No. 49G04-0606-MR-106634

August 9, 2012 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BAILEY, Judge

Case Summary Robert D. Oldham appeals the denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence. We affirm. Issue The sole issue for our review is whether the trial court properly denied Oldham's motion. Facts and Procedural History In 2007, Oldham was convicted in a bench trial of involuntary manslaughter and carrying a handgun without a license. The trial court sentenced him to forty years imprisonment. This Court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal in 2008. Oldham v. State, No. 49A05-0709-CR-500, (Ind. Ct. App. April 11, 2008), trans. denied. In 2011, Oldham, appearing pro se, filed a Motion to Correct Erroneous Sentence wherein he argued that the trial court used improper aggravators to enhance his sentence. The trial court denied the motion, and Oldham appeals. Discussion and Decision A motion to correct erroneous sentence is a statutory remedy that provides 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) (citing Gaddie v. State, 566 N.E.2d 535, 537 (Ind. 1991)). It is appropriate, however, only when the sentence is erroneous on its face. Robinson, at 787. This statutory remedy is not available when the claim requires consideration of matters outside the face of the sentencing judgment or

2

proceedings before, during or after trial. Id. For sentencing claims that are not facially apparent, the motion to correct erroneous sentence is an improper remedy. Id. Such claims may be raised only on direct appeal and, where appropriate, by post-conviction proceedings. Id. Here, Oldham's arguments require us to consider matters outside the face of the sentencing judgment, such as the transcript of the sentencing hearing. Accordingly, Oldham had no basis for filing a motion to correct erroneous sentence, and the trial court properly denied it. See Hakim v. State, 806 N.E.2d 774, 775 (Ind. 2004) (concluding that where Hakim had no basis for filing a motion to correct erroneous sentence, the trial court properly denied a motion to correct error under the Indiana Supreme Court's holding in Robinson). Affirmed. RILEY, J., and CRONE, J., concur.

3



Download 08091201lmb.pdf

Indiana Law