Andres Lara-Sangines v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Apr 10 2017, 10:05 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
Andres Lara-Sangines Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Correctional Industrial Facility Attorney General of Indiana
Pendleton, Indiana
George P. Sherman
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Andres Lara-Sangines, April 10, 2017
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
55A05-1612-CR-2935
v. Appeal from the Morgan Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Christopher L.
Appellee-Respondent Burnham, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
55D02-1005-FA-126
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A05-1612-CR-2935 | April 10, 2017 Page 1 of 3
[1] On November 18, 2010, Andres Lara-Sangines was convicted of class A felony
dealing in cocaine and was sentenced to twenty-years’ imprisonment. In
November 2016, Lara-Sangines filed a pro se motion for sentence modification,
which the trial court denied. He now appeals that denial. We affirm.
[2] We review a trial court’s decision regarding modification of a sentence for an
abuse of discretion. Gardiner v. State, 928 N.E.2d 194, 196 (Ind. 2010). An
abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the
logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or when the
court misinterprets the law. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013).
[3] Here, Lara-Sangines filed his motion for sentence modification requesting
consideration for “Home Detention, Work Release, or Daily Reporting[.]”
Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 9. The trial court entered its order denying the
motion. Lara-Sangines asserts that the trial court erred “when it denied [his]
motion solely on the lack of Prosecutorial approval.” Appellant’s Br. at 6. 1
However, as noted by the State, nowhere in the trial court’s order does the trial
court indicate that it denied the motion based upon the alleged lack of
prosecutorial approval or consent to a modification of placement. Rather, after
1
Lara-Sangines references Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-17 which addresses sentence modification. Prior to
July 1, 2014, the statute provided that a trial court lost jurisdiction to modify a defendant’s sentence after 365
days unless the prosecuting attorney consented to the modification. The statute was revised to eliminate the
necessity of prosecutorial consent, and our legislature has expressly provided for retroactivity by stating that
the statute applies to a person who “(1) commits an offense; or is sentenced; before July 1, 2014.” Ind. Code
§ 35-38-1-17(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A05-1612-CR-2935 | April 10, 2017 Page 2 of 3
reviewing the request, the trial court denied the motion on the merits. Lara-
Sangines has demonstrated no abuse of discretion.
[4] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 55A05-1612-CR-2935 | April 10, 2017 Page 3 of 3