Hoggatt v. State, 49A02-0310-CR-858.

Citation810 N.E.2d 737
Decision Date21 June 2004
Docket NumberNo. 49A02-0310-CR-858.,49A02-0310-CR-858.
PartiesSamuel HOGGATT, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

James C. Spencer, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant. Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Jodi Kathryn Stein, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

OPINION ON REHEARING

VAIDIK, Judge.

The State seeks rehearing in Hoggatt v. State, 805 N.E.2d 1281 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). Although we affirm our original opinion in all respects, we write on rehearing to address the State's argument that it could have filed an Indiana Trial Rule 60(A) motion to correct the clerical mistakes in Hoggatt's sentencing judgments.

In Hoggatt, we addressed the options that the State has to challenge a sentencing defect that is not apparent on the face of a sentencing judgment. Specifically, we relied on the Indiana Supreme Court's recent opinion in Robinson v. State, in which the court held: "As to sentencing claims not facially apparent, the motion to correct sentence is an improper remedy. Such claims may be raised only on direct appeal and, where appropriate, by post-conviction proceedings." 805 N.E.2d 783, 787 (Ind.2004) (emphasis added). Because the State is unable to seek post-conviction relief and because the thirty-day deadline for a direct appeal had long since passed, we concluded in our original opinion that the State was left without a remedy to challenge Hoggatt's sentence. Hoggatt, 805 N.E.2d at 1284.

On rehearing, the State takes issue with our conclusion that it was left without a remedy and claims that it had yet another option: it could have filed a motion pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 60(A) to correct the clerical mistakes in Hoggatt's sentencing judgments. Trial Rule 60(A) provides:

Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the trial court at any time before the trial court clerk issues its Notice of Completion of Clerk's Record. Such corrections may be made by the trial court on its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. After the filing of the Notice of Completion of Clerk's Record, such mistakes may be so corrected with leave of the court on appeal.

Ind. Trial Rule 60(A) (emphasis added). While it is questionable whether Trial Rule 60(A) can be used to challenge a sentencing defect that is not apparent on the face of a sentencing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Hardley v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • May 5, 2009
    ...Sr. J., dissenting). This position is consistent with Hoggatt v. State, 805 N.E.2d 1281, 1284 (Ind.Ct.App.2004), aff'd on reh'g, 810 N.E.2d 737 (Ind.Ct.Ap. 2004), trans. denied. The Court of Appeals majority expressly declined to follow Hoggatt. Hardley, 893 N.E.2d at 1146. We accept jurisd......
  • Hardley v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • September 26, 2008
    ...the State filed its response brief in this appeal that the issue was raised. Hoggatt v.State, 805 N.E.2d 1281 (Ind. Ct.App.2004), reh. 810 N.E.2d 737 dealt with an analogous situation. There, defendant was out on bond from an unrelated charge when he committed another offense. The judgment ......

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