Reuben Nathaniel Wright v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 27, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-1485
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 27 2018, 10:22 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana Brooklyn, Indiana Chandra K. Hein Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Reuben Nathaniel Wright, December 27, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-1485 v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Sarah K. Mullican, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 84D03-1703-F3-859

Sharpnack, Senior Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1485 | December 27, 2018 Page 1 of 4 Statement of the Case [1] Reuben Nathaniel Wright appeals the sentence the trial court imposed after

Wright pleaded guilty but mentally ill to two counts of attempted aggravated 1 battery, both Level 3 felonies. He further admitted to being an habitual 2 offender. We reverse and remand with instructions.

Issue [2] Wright raises one issue, which we restate as: whether there is an error in the

abstract of judgment that requires correction.

Facts and Procedural History [3] The State charged Wright with two counts of attempted aggravated battery and

six other felonies, and with being an habitual offender, following an encounter

with police officers and fire fighters. Wright and the State negotiated a plea

agreement, pursuant to which Wright agreed to plead guilty but mentally ill to

two counts of attempted aggravated battery and to being an habitual offender.

The State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges. The parties further agreed

to cap Wright’s sentence at twenty years.

[4] The trial court accepted the plea agreement. At the end of the sentencing

hearing, the court told the parties that Wright would serve nine years on each

1 Ind. Code §§ 35-42-2-1.5 (2014), 35-41-5-1 (2014). 2 Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (2017).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1485 | December 27, 2018 Page 2 of 4 Level 3 felony conviction, to be served concurrently, with one of those

sentences enhanced by an additional eight years due to the habitual offender

enhancement.

[5] The court further issued a sentencing judgment stating that Wright was

sentenced to nine years on each Level 3 felony, to be served concurrently, and

“[t]he sentence imposed in Count 1 herein shall be enhanced by a period of

eight (8) years as a result of [Wright’s] admission that he is an Habitual

Offender.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2, p. 111. Finally, the court issued an 3 abstract of judgment, but the abstract showed that the sentencing enhancement

was applied to both Level 3 felony convictions. This appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision [6] Wright argues the abstract of judgment must be corrected because it appears

that the habitual offender sentencing enhancement was erroneously applied to

both Level 3 felony convictions. The State acknowledges the apparent

scrivener’s error and agrees “remand is appropriate.” Appellee’s Br. p. 8.

[7] In general, sentencing decisions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Bethea

v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134, 1139 (Ind. 2013). We review questions of law de

novo. Russell v. State, 34 N.E.3d 1223, 1227 (Ind. 2015) (quotation omitted).

“It is the court’s judgment of conviction and not the abstract of judgment that is

3 The abstract of judgment is “a form issued by the Department of Correction and completed by trial judges for the convenience of the Department.” Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 792 (Ind. 2004).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1485 | December 27, 2018 Page 3 of 4 the official trial court record and which thereafter is the controlling document.”

Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 794 (Ind. 2004).

[8] Based upon our review of the sentencing transcript, the sentencing judgment,

and the abstract of judgment, we conclude the oral pronouncement of sentence

and the sentencing judgment most accurately reflect the trial court’s stated

intention to attach the habitual offender sentencing enhancement to the

sentence for Count 1, the first count of attempted aggravated battery.

Furthermore, even if the trial court had intended to apply the enhancement to

both convictions, such an application would violate statutory requirements. See

Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (the enhancement shall be attached “to the felony

conviction with the highest sentence”). The trial court must issue an amended

abstract of judgment that applies the habitual offender sentencing enhancement

to Count I only.

Conclusion [9] For the reasons stated above, we reverse and remand to the trial court to issue

an amended abstract of judgment.

[10] Reversed and remanded with instructions.

Najam, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1485 | December 27, 2018 Page 4 of 4