Gaddie v. State, No. 49S00-8808-CR-756

Docket NºNo. 49S00-8808-CR-756
Citation566 N.E.2d 535
Case DateFebruary 13, 1991
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 535

566 N.E.2d 535
Robert GADDIE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 49S00-8808-CR-756.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Feb. 13, 1991.

Page 536

Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Stephen T. Owens, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., John D. Shuman, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

DeBRULER, Justice.

Pursuant to a plea agreement executed March 18, 1985, appellant pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter, I.C. 35-42-1-3, a Class B felony. The plea agreement provided that at the time of appellant's sentencing, the State would recommend that both sides argue for an appropriate sentence, with the trial court determining the actual sentence. On April 25, the trial court sentenced appellant to eighteen years, which represented the presumptive ten-year sentence for the offense of voluntary manslaughter, enhanced by eight years for aggravating circumstances.

On November 20, 1987, appellant filed a pro se motion to correct erroneous sentence and memorandum in support thereof pursuant to I.C. 35-38-1-15. On December 7, the trial court denied this motion. On December 21, appellant filed a pro se motion to correct errors, addressed to the December 7 ruling, which was denied on December

Page 537

22. On December 23, appellant contacted the Public Defender of Indiana and asked for assistance in this cause. On May 11, 1988, appellant, by counsel, filed a petition for permission to file a belated appeal. This petition was granted on May 19.

Appellant now brings this direct appeal asserting error in that the court ruled upon his motion without a formal hearing, ruled upon his motion without appointing counsel, and that the sentencing judge failed to state specific reasons for his decision to enhance appellant's sentence and did not properly balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

The statute governing appellant's motion, I.C. 35-38-1-15, allows for the correction of an erroneous sentence and requires a motion to correct sentence to be in writing and to be supported by a memorandum of law specifically pointing out the defect in the original sentence. Appellant's motion to correct erroneous sentence was summarily denied by the trial court, without providing appellant with an opportunity to present an oral legal argument or to present evidence. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in proceeding in this fashion.

We hold that, in this instance, it was not error for the trial court to determine appellant's motion to correct erroneous sentence following this summary procedure. In explanation of the function of this post-conviction procedure this Court has recently said:

The use of the statutory procedure should be limited to those instances where the sentence is erroneous on its face. The use of Ind.Code Sec. 35-38-1-15 is proper for errors in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 practice notes
  • State v. Francis, No. 19378.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • August 2, 2016
    ...prompt, direct access to an uncomplicated legal process for correcting the occasional erroneous or illegal sentence.” Gaddie v. State, 566 N.E.2d 535, 537 (Ind.1991) ; see, e.g., United States ex rel. Green v. Washington, 917 F.Supp. 1238, 1276 (N.D.Ill.1996) (noting that “a properly prepar......
  • State v. Francis, SC 19378
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • August 2, 2016
    ...direct access to an uncomplicated legal process for correcting Page 12the occasional erroneous or illegal sentence." Gaddie v. State, 566 N.E.2d 535, 537 (Ind. 1991); see, e.g., United States ex rel. Green v. Washington, 917 F. Supp. 1238, 1276 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (noting that "a properly prep......
  • Dexter v. State , No. 79S05–1106–CR–367.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 12, 2012
    ...and supporting evidence to identify the defendant as the same person who was convicted of those crimes.” (citation omitted)); Beavers, 566 N.E.2d at 535 (holding that oral testimony considered in conjunction with documentary evidence was sufficient to establish proper sequence because “[t]h......
  • Robinson v. State, No. 45S03-0307-PC-314.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 10, 2004
    ...prompt, direct access to an uncomplicated legal process for correcting the occasional erroneous or illegal sentence." Gaddie v. State, 566 N.E.2d 535, 537 (Ind.1991). In Thompson v. State, we declined to limit a defendant to the remedy provided by the Indiana Post-Conviction Rules and 805 N......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 cases
  • State v. Francis, No. 19378.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • August 2, 2016
    ...prompt, direct access to an uncomplicated legal process for correcting the occasional erroneous or illegal sentence.” Gaddie v. State, 566 N.E.2d 535, 537 (Ind.1991) ; see, e.g., United States ex rel. Green v. Washington, 917 F.Supp. 1238, 1276 (N.D.Ill.1996) (noting that “a properly prepar......
  • State v. Francis, SC 19378
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • August 2, 2016
    ...direct access to an uncomplicated legal process for correcting Page 12the occasional erroneous or illegal sentence." Gaddie v. State, 566 N.E.2d 535, 537 (Ind. 1991); see, e.g., United States ex rel. Green v. Washington, 917 F. Supp. 1238, 1276 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (noting that "a properly prep......
  • Dexter v. State , No. 79S05–1106–CR–367.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 12, 2012
    ...and supporting evidence to identify the defendant as the same person who was convicted of those crimes.” (citation omitted)); Beavers, 566 N.E.2d at 535 (holding that oral testimony considered in conjunction with documentary evidence was sufficient to establish proper sequence because “[t]h......
  • Robinson v. State, No. 45S03-0307-PC-314.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 10, 2004
    ...prompt, direct access to an uncomplicated legal process for correcting the occasional erroneous or illegal sentence." Gaddie v. State, 566 N.E.2d 535, 537 (Ind.1991). In Thompson v. State, we declined to limit a defendant to the remedy provided by the Indiana Post-Conviction Rules and 805 N......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT