Bradley D. Musselman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 9, 2018
• Docket: 09A02-1707-CR-1726
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Feb 09 2018, 10:37 am Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as CLERK Indiana Supreme Court precedent or cited before any court except for the Court of Appeals and Tax Court purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Bradley D. Musselman Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Westville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Justin F. Roebel Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Bradley D. Musselman, February 9, 2018

Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 09A02-1707-CR-1726 v. Appeal from the Cass Superior Court. The Honorable Richard A. State of Indiana, Maughmer, Judge. Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No. 09D02-1502-F4-7

Barteau, Senior Judge

Statement of the Case [1] Bradley D. Musselman appeals the denial of his motion to correct erroneous

sentence. We affirm.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1707-CR-1726 | February 9, 2018 Page 1 of 4 Issue [2] Musselman raises one issue, which we restate as: whether the trial court abused

its discretion in denying his motion.

Facts and Procedural History [3] The State charged Musselman with numerous criminal offenses. During plea

negotiations, the parties initially submitted a plea agreement to the court.

Pursuant to that agreement, Musselman would have pled guilty to dealing in

methamphetamine, a Level 4 felony, and neglect of a dependent, a Level 6

felony. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss other pending charges and

further agreed to a maximum sentence of eight years.

[4] According to the Chronological Case Summary, the parties withdrew that

agreement and later submitted a second agreement. Under the second

agreement, Musselman agreed to plead guilty to dealing in methamphetamine

and neglect of a dependent, but his maximum sentence would be capped at

twelve years. The trial court accepted the second plea agreement and imposed

a sentence. Musselman did not appeal.

[5] On July 17, 2017, Musselman filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence.

The court denied Musselman’s motion without a hearing, and this appeal

followed.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1707-CR-1726 | February 9, 2018 Page 2 of 4 Discussion and Decision [6] When a convicted person is erroneously sentenced, he or she may file a motion

to correct erroneous sentence identifying the error and asking the court to

correct it. Ind. Code § 35-38-1-15 (1983). The Indiana Supreme Court has

clarified that a motion to correct erroneous sentence may address only errors

that are found on the face of the sentencing document. Neff v. State, 888 N.E.2d

1249, 1251 (Ind. 2008) (quotation omitted). Sentencing errors that require

examination of matters beyond the face of the sentencing document must be

addressed via direct appeal or post-conviction relief. Id.

[7] We review the grant or denial of a motion to correct erroneous sentence for an

abuse of discretion. Woodcox v. State, 30 N.E.3d 748, 750 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

An abuse of discretion 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).

[8] Here, Musselman argued in his motion to correct erroneous sentence that the

trial court should not have accepted the withdrawal of the first plea agreement

and that he was entitled to be sentenced under its terms rather than the terms of

the second agreement. Addressing this claim would necessarily require an

examination of the facts and circumstances under which the plea agreements

were negotiated and presented to the trial court, as well as the court’s reasoning

in allowing the first plea agreement to be withdrawn. In other words,

Musselman presented a claim that would have required the trial court to look

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1707-CR-1726 | February 9, 2018 Page 3 of 4 beyond the face of the sentencing order. His argument is not properly presented

by way of a motion to correct erroneous sentence, and we cannot say the court

abused its discretion in denying it. See Godby v. State, 976 N.E.2d 1235, 1236

(Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (no error in denying motion to correct erroneous sentence;

appellant presented sentencing claim that would have required an examination

of the sentencing hearing).

Conclusion [9] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[10] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Bradford, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1707-CR-1726 | February 9, 2018 Page 4 of 4