Michael Becker v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), May 25 2016, 7:01 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael Becker Gregory F. Zoeller
New Castle Correctional Facility Attorney General of Indiana
New Castle, Indiana Monika Prekopa Talbot
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Michael Becker, May 25, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
71A04-1510-CR-1565
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jerome Frese,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
71D03-0606-FA-27
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1510-CR-1565 | May 25, 2016 Page 1 of 3
[1] Michael Becker, pro se, appeals the denial of his motion to correct erroneous
sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.
[2] Following Becker’s guilty plea to class B felony child molesting, the trial court
sentenced him to a term of eighteen years, with twelve years suspended to
probation. Becker served his executed term and was released to probation. The
State filed a notice of probation violation, a hearing was held, and Becker
admitted to the violation. At the dispositional hearing, the trial court stated
that it was not revoking Becker’s probation but ordered him to serve the
remainder of his sentence at the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) as
a condition of his probation. Becker filed a motion to correct erroneous
sentence, which the trial court denied. Becker appeals.
[3] Becker argues that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve the remainder
of his sentence at the DOC as a condition of his probation. We review a trial
court’s ruling on a motion to correct sentence for an abuse of discretion.
Woodcox v. State, 30 N.E.3d 748, 750 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). A trial court abuses
its discretion if its decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances before it. Id. A motion to correct erroneous sentence under
Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-15 is appropriate only for “sentencing errors that
are clear from the face of the judgment imposing the sentence in light of the
statutory authority.” Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 787 (Ind. 2004).
Therefore, we will not review any of Becker’s claims that address matters
beyond whether the judgment is facially erroneous.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1510-CR-1565 | May 25, 2016 Page 2 of 3
[4] Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-2.3(c) states, “As a condition of probation, the
court may require that the person serve a term of imprisonment in an
appropriate facility at the time or intervals (consecutive or intermittent) within
the period of probation the court determines.” This Court has previously
determined that a trial court may suspend a sentence, place a defendant on
probation, and then order, as a condition of probation, the defendant to serve a
consecutive period of imprisonment. Strowmatt v. State, 779 N.E.2d 971, 976
(Ind. Ct. App. 2002). Becker attempts to distinguish Strowmatt by arguing that
the term of imprisonment in Strowmatt was consecutive and his term of
imprisonment is intermittent. However, the trial court did not order Becker to
serve intermittent terms of imprisonment. Therefore, we conclude that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in denying Becker’s motion to correct
erroneous sentence.
[5] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1510-CR-1565 | May 25, 2016 Page 3 of 3