Michael Becker v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 25, 2016
• Docket: 71A04-1510-CR-1565
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), May 25 2016, 7:01 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court

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

APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael Becker Gregory F. Zoeller New Castle Correctional Facility Attorney General of Indiana New Castle, Indiana Monika Prekopa Talbot Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Michael Becker, May 25, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 71A04-1510-CR-1565 v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Jerome Frese, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 71D03-0606-FA-27

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1510-CR-1565 | May 25, 2016 Page 1 of 3 [1] Michael Becker, pro se, appeals the denial of his motion to correct erroneous

sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.

[2] Following Becker’s guilty plea to class B felony child molesting, the trial court

sentenced him to a term of eighteen years, with twelve years suspended to

probation. Becker served his executed term and was released to probation. The

State filed a notice of probation violation, a hearing was held, and Becker

admitted to the violation. At the dispositional hearing, the trial court stated

that it was not revoking Becker’s probation but ordered him to serve the

remainder of his sentence at the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) as

a condition of his probation. Becker filed a motion to correct erroneous

sentence, which the trial court denied. Becker appeals.

[3] Becker argues that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve the remainder

of his sentence at the DOC as a condition of his probation. We review a trial

court’s ruling on a motion to correct sentence for an abuse of discretion.

Woodcox v. State, 30 N.E.3d 748, 750 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). A trial court abuses

its discretion if its decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and

circumstances before it. Id. A motion to correct erroneous sentence under

Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-15 is appropriate only for “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).

Therefore, we will not review any of Becker’s claims that address matters

beyond whether the judgment is facially erroneous.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1510-CR-1565 | May 25, 2016 Page 2 of 3 [4] Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-2.3(c) states, “As a condition of probation, the

court may require that the person serve a term of imprisonment in an

appropriate facility at the time or intervals (consecutive or intermittent) within

the period of probation the court determines.” This Court has previously

determined that a trial court may suspend a sentence, place a defendant on

probation, and then order, as a condition of probation, the defendant to serve a

consecutive period of imprisonment. Strowmatt v. State, 779 N.E.2d 971, 976

(Ind. Ct. App. 2002). Becker attempts to distinguish Strowmatt by arguing that

the term of imprisonment in Strowmatt was consecutive and his term of

imprisonment is intermittent. However, the trial court did not order Becker to

serve intermittent terms of imprisonment. Therefore, we conclude that the trial

court did not abuse its discretion in denying Becker’s motion to correct

erroneous sentence.

[5] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Robb, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1510-CR-1565 | May 25, 2016 Page 3 of 3