Crockett v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Crockett v. State

121 N.E.3d 152

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 31, 2019

DocketCourt of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-391

StatusPublished

This text of 121 N.E.3d 152 (Crockett v. State) 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

Crockett v. State, 121 N.E.3d 152 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

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, 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.

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

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, 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 N.E.3d 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crockett-v-state-indctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack