Appellant pro se Attorneys for Appellee
Lloyd F. Laycock Stephen R. Carter
Bunker Hill, Indiana Attorney General
Gary Damon Secrest
Deputy Attorney General
Appeal from the Clay Circuit Court, No. 11C01-9202-CF-11
The Honorable Ernest E. Yelton, Judge
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 11A04-0305-PC-245
Appeal from the Lake Superior Court, No. 45D02-9107-CF-147
The Honorable Clarence D. Murray, Judge
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 45A03-0305-PC-198
Appeal from the Marion Criminal Court, No. CR87-122 F
The Honorable Jane Magnus Stinson, Judge
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-0307-PC-636
We address these three cases in a single consolidated opinion because of their
procedural similarity and because they present the same issue. Defendants Floyd F.
Laycock, Teodoro V. Garcia, and James F. Glass each seek transfer from an
order of the Court of Appeals dismissing their respective appeals. Each appeal
sought to challenge the denial of a motion to correct sentence, challenging the
trial court's failure to designate on the abstract of judgment the amount of
credit time earned for pre-sentence confinement. In each of these cases, the
defendants had previously completed a post-conviction proceeding. Treating the motions to correct
sentence as successive petitions for post-conviction relief, the Court of Appeals dismissed the
appeals on grounds that the defendants each failed to comply with Indiana Post-Conviction
Rule 1(12), which permits the filing of such successive petitions only upon prior
authorization by the court. As to each case, we grant transfer and
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
As we hold today in Robinson v. State, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 2004), a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Indiana Code § 35-38-1-1 asserting a claim that is susceptible to determination from the face of the sentencing judgment is not in the nature of a post-conviction proceeding and is not subject to the requirement for prior authorization in P-C R. 1(2). Id. at ___ (slip opin. at 5). The defendants' appeals are not subject to dismissal on this ground.
Each of these appeals is grounded upon the claim that the trial court's
entries on the Department of Correction's abstract of judgment form violated Indiana Code
§ 35-38-3-2(a) which requires the sentencing judgment to include the time spent in
pre-sentence confinement and also the amount of credit time earned for said confinement.
Each defendant's appeal complains only of this omission in the abstract of
judgment and does not allege any omission in the trial court's sentencing judgment.
Entries in the abstract of judgment may not be challenged by a
motion to correct sentence. Robinson v. State, ___ N.E.2d at ___ (slip
opinion at 14-15). For this reason, the trial courts did not
err in rejecting the motion to correct sentence filed by each of these
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in each case.
Shepard, C.J., and Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.