Jamie C. Carson, Sr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 31, 2017
• Docket: 49A02-1610-CR-2337
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing Jul 31 2017, 9:35 am

the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK Indiana Supreme Court estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals and Tax Court

APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Jamie C. Carson, Sr. Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Pendleton Correctional Facility Attorney General of Indiana Pendleton, Indiana Ian McLean Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jamie C. Carson, Sr., July 31, 2017 Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1610-CR-2337 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Lisa F. Borges, Appellee-Respondent Judge The Honorable Anne Flannelly, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49G04-9910-PC-189843

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-CR-2337 | July 31, 2017 Page 1 of 3 Case Summary [1] Jamie C. Carson, Sr., appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct

erroneous sentence. Carson claims that the trial court erred in denying his

motion. Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On October 28, 1999, Carson committed the crimes, involving two separate

victims, from which this appeal stems. Carson was originally charged with

thirty-seven counts. On November, 30, 2000, the State amended the

information and charged Carson with two counts of class A felony criminal

deviate conduct, class A felony robbery, class A felony attempted robbery, two

counts of class B felony criminal confinement, and class A misdemeanor

carrying a handgun without a license. Following a bench trial, the trial court

found Carson guilty of all seven charges. The trial court imposed an aggregate

sentence of 120 years.

[3] Carson appealed, and this Court affirmed his convictions and sentence. Carson

v. State, No. 49A05-0206-CR-260 (Ind. Ct. App. May 28, 2003), trans. denied.

Thereafter, Carson sought postconviction relief. Another panel of the court

concluded that appellate counsel offered ineffective assistance for failing to

argue that the sentences on counts 4 and 5 violated the consecutive sentencing

statute, and remanded with instructions to enter a sentence of fifty-five years for

counts 4 and 5. Carson v. State, No. 49A05-1502-PC-69, 2015 WL 8479530, at

*12-13 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2015), trans. denied (2016).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-CR-2337 | July 31, 2017 Page 2 of 3 [4] On September 9, 2016, Carson filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence,

claiming that his sentence violated double jeopardy principles. The trial court

denied the motion that same day. This appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision [5] Carson appeals the trial court’s ruling on his motion to correct erroneous

sentence. Our supreme court has held that

a motion to correct sentence may only be used to correct sentencing errors that are clear from the face of the judgment imposing the sentence in light of the statutory authority. Claims that require consideration of the proceedings before, during, or after a trial may not be presented by way of a motion to correct sentence.

Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 787 (Ind. 2004). We recently held that a

double jeopardy claim does not meet the “erroneous on its face” standard

because it requires consideration of matters outside the face of the sentencing

judgment. Micheau v. State, 74 N.E.3d 567, 569 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans.

denied. Therefore, we affirm.

[6] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Barnes, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-CR-2337 | July 31, 2017 Page 3 of 3