Raphael Miles v. State of Indiana ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • 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            Dec 19 2013, 7:13 am
    the defense of res judicata, collateral
    estoppel, or the law of the case.
    APPELLANT PRO SE:                                   ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
    RAPHAEL MILES                                       GREGORY F. ZOELLER
    Indianapolis Re-Entry Educational Facility          Attorney General of Indiana
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    MONIKA PREKOPA TALBOT
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    RAPHAEL MILES,                                      )
    )
    Appellant-Defendant,                         )
    )
    vs.                                  )         No. 82A01-1306-CR-295
    )
    STATE OF INDIANA,                                   )
    )
    Appellee-Plaintiff.                          )
    APPEAL FROM THE VANDERBURGH CIRCUIT COURT
    The Honorable Kelli E. Fink, Magistrate
    Cause No. 82C01-0004-CF-472
    December 19, 2013
    MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    CRONE, Judge
    Case Summary
    Raphael Miles, pro se, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct
    erroneous sentence. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court abused
    its discretion when it denied the motion. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
    Facts and Procedural History
    The facts indicate that a jury convicted Miles of two counts of class B felony dealing
    in cocaine and one count of class A misdemeanor dealing in marijuana. Miles also pled
    guilty to being a habitual offender. On June 27, 2001, the trial court sentenced Miles to
    concurrent sentences of fifteen years for counts I and III, the class B felonies, and one year
    for count II, the class A misdemeanor. The trial court enhanced the sentence on count I by
    twenty years for the habitual offender finding, resulting in an aggregate sentence of thirty-
    five years.
    Miles appealed to this Court, and we affirmed his convictions in a published opinion.
    Miles v. State, 
    764 N.E.2d 237
     (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. Miles subsequently filed
    a pro se motion for post-conviction relief, arguing that he was denied the effective assistance
    of trial and appellate counsel. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition
    with prejudice. However, on appeal, we reversed and remanded to the post-conviction court.
    Miles v. State, No. 82A01-0711-PC-529 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2009). Following remand,
    the post-conviction court denied the petition on December 22, 2011. Thereafter, on August
    13, 2012, Miles filed a pro se motion to correct erroneous sentence. The trial court denied
    the motion. This appeal ensued.
    2
    Discussion and Decision
    We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to correct erroneous sentence only for an
    abuse of discretion. Fry v. State, 
    939 N.E.2d 687
    , 689 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). An abuse of
    discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is against the logic and effect of the facts
    and circumstances before it. 
    Id.
     An inmate who believes that he has been erroneously
    sentenced may file a motion to correct the sentence pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-38-
    1-15, which provides:
    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.
    A motion to correct erroneous sentence may be filed only to address a sentence that is
    “erroneous on its face.” Robinson v. State, 
    805 N.E.2d 783
    , 786 (Ind. 2004). Such motion
    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. 
    Id. at 787
    . Claims that require
    consideration of the proceedings before, during, or after trial may not be presented by way of
    a motion to correct erroneous sentence. 
    Id.
     Sentencing claims that are not facially apparent
    “may be raised only on direct appeal and, where appropriate, by post-conviction
    proceedings.” 
    Id.
     The narrow confines of the procedure for a motion to correct erroneous
    sentence are to be strictly applied. 
    Id. at 786
    .
    Here, Miles challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the habitual offender
    finding. This is not a proper claim for a motion to correct erroneous sentence because it is
    3
    not a challenge to a sentence that is erroneous on its face. Instead, it necessarily requires
    consideration of the habitual offender charging information as well as evidence presented at
    the sentencing hearing, which we may not consider. 1 Moreover, Miles pled guilty to being a
    habitual offender and admitted the factual basis underlying that charge. Therefore, Miles
    may not directly challenge his habitual offender enhancement. “A person who pleads guilty
    is not permitted to challenge the propriety of that conviction on direct appeal.” Collins v.
    State, 
    817 N.E.2d 230
    , 231 (Ind. 2004). The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it
    denied Miles’s motion to correct erroneous sentence.
    Affirmed.
    BAKER, J., and NAJAM, J., concur.
    1
    We note that Miles included neither an abstract of judgment nor a judgment of conviction in the
    record on appeal. He claims that none exists. This is of no moment for our purposes because his motion to
    correct erroneous sentence does not seek review of any facial error in those documents but improperly seeks
    consideration of extrinsic evidence.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 82A01-1306-CR-295

Filed Date: 12/19/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014