Hatchett v. State, No. 49A04-0211-PC-530.
| Docket Nº | No. 49A04-0211-PC-530. |
| Citation | 794 N.E.2d 544 |
| Case Date | August 29, 2003 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
794 N.E.2d 544
Vincent HATCHETT, Appellant-Defendant,v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
No. 49A04-0211-PC-530.
Court of Appeals of Indiana.
August 29, 2003.
Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, George P. Sherman, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
OPINION
BROOK, Chief Judge.
Case Summary
Appellant-defendant Vincent Hatchett appeals the denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence. We affirm.
Issue
Hatchett raises three issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court erred in denying his motion.
Facts and Procedural History1
On February 9, 2000, the trial court convicted Hatchett of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon,2 a Class B felony, and of carrying a handgun without a license3 as a Class A misdemeanor. On March 10, 2000, the trial court sentenced Hatchett to concurrent sentences of fourteen years and one year, respectively, with five years of the fourteen-year sentence suspended to probation. In its abstract of judgment, the trial court recorded that Hatchett had been confined 193 days prior to sentencing. See Appellant's App. at 32.4
On July 17, 2002, Hatchett filed pro se a petition for post-conviction relief. Appellant's App. at 21-22. On July 30, 2002, Hatchett filed pro se a motion to correct erroneous sentence in which he claimed that "the sentencing court failed to award credit time in addition to actual time served on the Abstract of Judgment." Id. at 30. On July 30, 2002, an unknown author (presumably the trial court) entered and initialed the following handwritten notation on Hatchett's motion to correct erroneous sentence: "Denied. DOC [Department of Correction] gives credit time based on jail time actually served." Id.5 The chronological case summary indicates that the trial court denied Hatchett's petition for post-conviction relief in an order
Discussion and Decision
Initially, we observe that a petition for post-conviction relief is the preferred procedure for presenting a sentencing error. Funk v. State, 714 N.E.2d 746, 748 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied. Nevertheless, a motion to correct erroneous sentence "is appropriate where the sentence is erroneous on its face and that facial error occurs when the sentence violates express statutory authority." Mitchell v. State, 726 N.E.2d 1228, 1243 (Ind. 2000).
As recorded in the abstract of judgment, Hatchett's sentence is not facially erroneous. The abstract indicates that Hatchett received a statutorily authorized sentence for a Class B felony. See Ind.Code § 35-50-2-5 ("A person who commits a Class B felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of ten (10) years, with not more than years added for aggravating circumstances or not more than four (4) years subtracted for mitigating circumstances[.]").
Nonetheless, Hatchett claims that he "has received only credit for actual time imprisoned and has not received credit for one day of credit for each day served for being in Credit Class I." Appellant's Br. at 6 (emphasis omitted). Hatchett correctly notes that a person imprisoned awaiting trial or sentencing is initially assigned to Class I for credit time purposes. See Ind. Code § 35-50-6-4(a). Indiana Code Section 35-50-6-3(a) provides that a person assigned to Class I earns one day of credit time ("good time credit") for each day he is confined awaiting trial or sentencing ("time served"). Hatchett also correctly notes that a trial court's judgment of conviction "must include ... the amount of credit, including credit time earned, for time [the convicted person] spent in confinement before sentencing[.]" Ind.Code § 35-38-3-2(b)(4) (emphasis added).7
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. State, No. 45S03-0307-PC-314.
...for post-conviction relief." Jones, 544 N.E.2d at 496. See, e.g., Reffett, 571 N.E.2d at 1228; Gee, 508 N.E.2d at 788; Hatchett v. State, 794 N.E.2d 544, 546 (Ind.Ct.App.2003); White v. State, 793 N.E.2d 1127, 1129 (Ind. Ct.App.2003); Funk v. State, 714 N.E.2d 746, 748-49 (Ind.Ct.App.1999);......
-
McRoy v. State, No. 82A01-0301-CR-6.
...a hearing on July 31, 2003, some seven months after McRoy completed the maximum sentence that could be imposed by the trial court.5 794 N.E.2d 544 Regardless of McRoy's indigency status, the trial court was not precluded from imposing a fine and costs upon McRoy. However, the court was with......
-
Portee v. State, No. 02A04-0212-PC-595.
...by a motion to correct sentence.2 Judgment affirmed. RILEY, J., and SULLIVAN, J., concur. -------- Notes: 1. Hatchett v. State, 794 N.E.2d 544 (Ind.Ct. App.2003), and Risner v. Indiana Parole Bd., 779 N.E.2d 49 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), were overruled to the extent they held the DOC's abstract of ......
-
Woods v. Warden, CAUSE NO.: 2:18-CV-65-TLS
...is erroneous on its face, (As in this case), which occurs when the sentence violates express statutory authority. Hatchett v. State, 794 N.E. 2d 544 (Ind. App 2003). However, a motion to correct pursuant to I.C. § 35-38-1-15 is appropriate where the sentence is erroneous on its face (As In ......
-
Robinson v. State, No. 45S03-0307-PC-314.
...relief." Jones, 544 N.E.2d at 496. See, e.g., Reffett, 571 N.E.2d at 1228; Gee, 508 N.E.2d at 788; Hatchett v. State, 794 N.E.2d 544, 546 (Ind.Ct.App.2003); White v. State, 793 N.E.2d 1127, 1129 (Ind. Ct.App.2003); Funk v. State, 714 N.E.2d 746, 748-49 (Ind.Ct.App.1999); Poore v. State......
-
McRoy v. State, No. 82A01-0301-CR-6.
...a hearing on July 31, 2003, some seven months after McRoy completed the maximum sentence that could be imposed by the trial court.5 794 N.E.2d 544 Regardless of McRoy's indigency status, the trial court was not precluded from imposing a fine and costs upon McRoy. However, the court was with......
-
Portee v. State, No. 02A04-0212-PC-595.
...by a motion to correct sentence.2 Judgment affirmed. RILEY, J., and SULLIVAN, J., concur. -------- Notes: 1. Hatchett v. State, 794 N.E.2d 544 (Ind.Ct. App.2003), and Risner v. Indiana Parole Bd., 779 N.E.2d 49 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), were overruled to the extent they held the DOC's abstract of ......
-
Woods v. Warden, CAUSE NO.: 2:18-CV-65-TLS
...is erroneous on its face, (As in this case), which occurs when the sentence violates express statutory authority. Hatchett v. State, 794 N.E. 2d 544 (Ind. App 2003). However, a motion to correct pursuant to I.C. § 35-38-1-15 is appropriate where the sentence is erroneous on its face (As In ......