John A. Hawkins v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 25 2015, 7:47 am
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.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
John A. Hawkins Gregory F. Zoeller
Michigan City, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Lyubov Gore
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
John A. Hawkins, November 25, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A05-1507-CR-855
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court Criminal Division 1
State of Indiana, The Honorable Steven J. Rubick,
Appellee-Plaintiff Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G01-9708-CF-127418
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1507-CR-855 | November 25, 2015 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] John A. Hawkins (“Hawkins”), pro se, appeals the trial court’s denial of his
motion to correct error, which challenged the court’s denial of his motion to
correct sentence. He presents the sole issue of whether the trial court erred in
denying his motion to correct sentence, where the motion raised claims of error
that could not be resolved on the face of the sentencing judgment alone. We
affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In 1997, Hawkins was charged with the murder of Rogshan Love. Hawkins v.
State, 748 N.E.2d 362, 363 (Ind. 2001), reh’g denied. Following a jury trial, he
was found guilty of murder and sentenced to the maximum term of sixty-five
years imprisonment. Id. Our supreme court affirmed Hawkins’s conviction
and sentence on direct appeal. Id. at 364. In 2011, the trial court denied
Hawkins’s petition for post-conviction relief, a judgment later affirmed by this
Court in an unpublished decision. See Hawkins v. State, No. 49A04-1108-PC-
424, slip op. at 7 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2012), trans. denied.
[3] On April 27, 2015, Hawkins filed a motion to correct sentence and
memorandum of law in support of the motion. The motion raised federal and
state constitutional claims and challenged the trial court’s identification and
weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In an order dated May
13, 2015, the trial court denied the motion, finding that Hawkins’s motion
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1507-CR-855 | November 25, 2015 Page 2 of 4
“simply attempts to re-litigate issues that were addressed on direct appeal
without success.” (App. 24.) Hawkins then filed a motion to correct error on
June 19, 2015,1 which the trial court denied on June 23, 2015. Hawkins now
appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Hawkins filed his motion to correct 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.
The purpose of Section 35-38-1-15 “‘is to provide 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) (quoting Gaddie
v. State, 566 N.E.2d 535, 537 (Ind.1991)).
[5] A motion to correct sentence is appropriate only when the sentence is facially
erroneous. Id. Use of the motion is narrowly confined to claims that may be
1
Though file-stamped June 19, 2015, Hawkins’s motion to correct error was dated June 8, 2015.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1507-CR-855 | November 25, 2015 Page 3 of 4
resolved by considering only the face of the judgment of conviction and the
applicable statutory authority, without reference to other matters in or extrinsic
to the record. Id. at 787-88. A claim of sentencing error that requires
consideration of matters beyond the face of the sentencing judgment may be
raised only on direct appeal or through post-conviction relief proceedings. Id. at
787. A trial court’s ruling on a motion to correct sentence is subject to appeal
by normal appellate procedures. Id. at 786.
[6] Hawkins did not include a copy of the trial court’s judgment of conviction or
abstract of judgment2 in the appendix or with his brief. Accordingly, Hawkins
cannot on this record show that his sentence is facially erroneous. Moreover,
Hawkins’s federal and state constitutional claims, and his contentions that the
trial court improperly identified and weighed aggravating and mitigating
circumstances, require considerations beyond the face of the sentencing
judgment. Such claims may be raised only on direct appeal or through post-
conviction proceedings, not through a statutory motion to correct sentence.
Robinson, 805 N.E.2d at 787.
[7] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
2
When a defendant files a motion to correct sentence in a county such as Marion that does not issue
judgments of conviction, the abstract of judgment will serve as an appropriate substitute for the judgment of
conviction for purposes of making the claim. Neff v. State, 888 N.E.2d 1249, 1251 (Ind. 2008).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1507-CR-855 | November 25, 2015 Page 4 of 4