Jason L. Wanzell v. State of Indiana ( 2014 )

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 Sep 22 2014, 8:56 am
of establishing the defense of res
judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law
of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
JASON L. WANZELL GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Branchville Correctional Facility Attorney General of Indiana
JODI KATHRYN STEIN
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JASON L. WANZELL, )
)
Appellant-Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) No. 53A01-1311-CR-490
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Respondent. )
APPEAL FROM THE MONROE CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Kenneth G. Todd, Judge
Cause No. 53C03-1008-FB-769
September 22, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BARNES, Judge
Case Summary
Jason Wanzell appeals the denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence. We
affirm.
Issue
Wanzell raises one issue, which we restate whether the trial court properly denied
his motion to correct erroneous sentence challenging the amount of restitution imposed
pursuant to a restitution agreement.
Facts
In 2011, Wanzell pled guilty to Class B felony burglary and Class D felony
receiving stolen property. As part of the plea agreement, Wanzell agreed to pay
restitution in the amount of $5,305.91. The trial court sentenced Wanzell pursuant to the
terms of the agreement.
In September 2013, Wanzell filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence, which
the trial court denied on the basis that Wanzell expressly agreed that the monetary
restitution was owed by him to the named victims. In October 2013, Wanzell filed an
amended motion to correct erroneous sentence, which the trial court also denied for the
same reason. Wanzell now appeals.1
Analysis
Wanzell argues that the denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence was
improper because the restitution order was not supported by evidence of the victims’
1
Neither of the motions to correct erroneous sentence is included the appendix. Based on the trial
court’s orders denying the motions and the issues raised on appeal, we presume the motions challenged
the propriety of the restitution order.
2
losses and the amount of restitution ordered exceeded the victims’ actual losses. Wanzell
also argues that, although he agreed to the restitution order, the lack of factual basis to
support the amount of restitution ordered resulted in an illegal sentence.
We review a trial court’s decision on a motion to correct erroneous sentence only
for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the trial court’s decision is against the
logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Davis v. State, 978 N.E.2d 470,
472 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). An inmate who believes he or she has been erroneously
sentenced may file a motion to correct the sentence pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-
38-1-15. Neff v. State, 888 N.E.2d 1249, 1250-51 (Ind. 2008). Indiana Code Section 35-
38-1-15 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 sentence 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.” Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 787 (Ind. 2004). “Claims that require
consideration of the proceedings before, during, or after trial may not be presented by
way of a motion to correct sentence.” Id. “When claims of sentencing errors require
consideration of matters outside the face of the sentencing judgment, they are best
addressed promptly on direct appeal and thereafter via post-conviction relief proceedings
3
where applicable.” A post-conviction relief proceeding is the proper avenue for
challenging a guilty plea. Tumulty v. State, 666 N.E.2d 394, 396 (Ind. 1996).
To address the claims raised by Wanzell, the trial court would have had to
consider matters outside the face of the sentencing judgment—namely whether there was
a sufficient factual basis to support the order. The purported errors are not clear from the
face of the sentencing order and are not appropriate for a motion to correct erroneous
sentence. Wanzell has not established that the trial court abused its discretion in denying
his motion.
Conclusion
Because the alleged errors in the restitution order are not clear from the face of the
sentencing order, they are not appropriately raised in a motion to correct erroneous
sentence. We affirm.
Affirmed.
BRADFORD, J., and BROWN, J., concur.
4