Lennard Coleman, Sr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 10, 2015
• Docket: 79A05-1506-CR-635
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 10 2015, 10:02 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Lennard Coleman, Sr Gregory F. Zoeller Michigan City, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Pro-Se Christina D. Pace Deputy Attorney General

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Lennard Coleman, Sr., November 10, 2015 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 79A05-1506-CR-635 v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Thomas H. Busch, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 79D02-0503-FB-18

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1506-CR-635 | November 10, 2015 Page 1 of 4 [1] In 2005, Lennard Coleman, Sr., was sentenced to the maximum term of twenty

years1 for Class B felony Robbery While Armed with a Deadly Weapon, 2 and

such sentence was enhanced by thirty years based upon his status as a Habitual

Offender.3 In this appeal, Coleman, pro se, challenges the trial court’s denial of

his motion to correct erroneous sentence.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] In 2005, Coleman was convicted of robbery while armed with a deadly weapon

and found to be a habitual offender. Coleman appealed his conviction and

sentence to this court, challenging his pretrial identification as improper and

arguing that his sentence was inappropriate. Appellant’s Appendix at 75-84. This

court affirmed Coleman’s conviction and sentence. Id. On April 22, 2015,

Coleman filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence and the State filed its

response thereto on April 30, 2015. The trial court entered an order denying

1 Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5(a) (“A person who commits a Class B felony (for a crime committed before July 1, 2014) shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between six (6) and twenty (20) years, with the advisory sentence being ten (10) years.”). 2 Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1. Effective July 1, 2014, this offense was reclassified as a Level 3 felony. Because Coleman committed this offense prior to that date, it retains its prior classification as a Class B felony. 3 I.C. § 35-50-2-8 (“The court shall sentence a person found to be a habitual offender to an additional fixed term that is not less than the advisory sentence for the underlying offense nor more than three (3) times the advisory sentence for the underlying offense. However, the additional sentence may not exceed thirty (30) years.”).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1506-CR-635 | November 10, 2015 Page 2 of 4 Coleman’s motion to correct erroneous sentence on May 18, 2015. Coleman

now appeals.

Discussion & Decision

[4] When reviewing the denial of a motion to correct erroneous sentence, we will

review the court’s decision for an abuse of discretion. Felder v. State, 870

N.E.2d 554, 560 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). An abuse of discretion will be found

only when the trial court’s decision is against the logic and effect of the facts

and circumstances before it.” Id. Further, we note that a motion to correct

sentence may be used only to correct sentencing errors that are clear from the

face of the judgment imposing the sentence in light of the statutory authority.

Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 787 (Ind. 2004). Claims that require

consideration of the proceedings before, during, or after trial may not be

presented by way of a motion to correct sentence. Id. Our Supreme Court has

clarified that the narrow confines of this rule are to be strictly applied. Id.

[5] Coleman’s challenges to the merits of his sentence are not alleged errors limited

to the face of the sentencing judgment. Coleman challenges the aggravating

and mitigating factors identified by the trial court, the weight accorded thereto,

and the adequacy of the trial court’s sentencing statement. Coleman also

argues that there are additional mitigating factors that were supported by the

record and that the trial court improperly ordered his thirty-year sentence for his

status as a habitual offender to run consecutively to his twenty-year sentence for

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1506-CR-635 | November 10, 2015 Page 3 of 4 robbery. All of Coleman’s claims would require the court to go beyond the face

of the sentencing judgment.

[6] To this end, we note that Coleman’s sentence is not facially erroneous.

Coleman was sentenced to twenty years for his Class B felony robbery

conviction and the trial court ordered that such sentence “shall be enhanced by

thirty years for defendant being a Habitual Offender.” Appellant’s Appendix at 2.

At the time Coleman was sentenced, the maximum term for a Class B felony

was twenty years, with an advisory sentence of ten years. See I.C. § 35-50-2-

5(a). The habitual offender statute, I.C. § 35-50-2-8, provided for an

enhancement of the underlying sentence of up to thirty years for being a

habitual offender. Imposition of the maximum sentence does not make

Coleman’s sentence erroneous.

[7] Coleman also argues that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel

in his direct appeal and that he was mentally ill and thus unable to knowingly

and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial with respect to his habitual

offender enhancement. These arguments are not properly brought before the

court through a motion to correct erroneous sentence. We therefore affirm the

trial court’s denial of Coleman’s motion to correct erroneous sentence.

[8] Judgment affirmed.

[9] Riley, J., and Brown, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1506-CR-635 | November 10, 2015 Page 4 of 4