Antrone L. Crockett v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 31, 2019
Docket18A-CR-391
StatusPublished

This text of Antrone L. Crockett v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Antrone L. Crockett v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Antrone L. Crockett v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Jan 31 2019, 8:21 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court

the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Antrone L. Crockett Curtis T. Hill, Jr. South Bend, Indiana Attorney General Jesse R. Drum Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Antrone L. Crockett, January 31, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-391 v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Elizabeth Hurley, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 71D08-0403-MR-007

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

[1] In 2005, Antrone L. Crockett was convicted of Class A felony conspiracy to

commit murder, and the trial court sentenced him to forty years. In 2018,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-391 | January 31, 2019 Page 1 of 2 Crockett filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence pursuant to Indiana Code

section 35-38-1-15. Specifically, he argued that his “conviction is illegal on its

Face” because the State did not properly charge him with conspiracy.

Appellant’s App. p. 22 (emphasis added). The trial court denied Crockett’s

motion without holding a hearing because he did not allege “that the sentence

itself is erroneous on its face.” Id. at 49. We affirm. 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) (emphasis added). Here, however, the

basis of Crockett’s motion is that his conviction—not his sentence—is illegal.

[2] Affirmed.

Mathias, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-391 | January 31, 2019 Page 2 of 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Robinson v. State
805 N.E.2d 783 (Indiana Supreme Court, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Antrone L. Crockett v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antrone-l-crockett-v-state-of-indiana-mem-dec-indctapp-2019.