Maxie v. State

• Decision Date: 09 December 2015
• Docket Number: No. 71A04–1412–CR–580.,71A04–1412–CR–580.
• Citation: 43 N.E.3d 271 (Table)
• Parties: Robert J. MAXIE, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

43 N.E.3d 271 (Table)

Robert J. MAXIE, Appellant–Defendant
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.

No. 71A04–1412–CR–580.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Dec. 9, 2015.

Robert J. Maxie Pendleton, IN, Appellant pro se.

Gregory F. Zoeller Attorney General of Indiana, Ellen H. Meilaender Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

BROWN, Judge.

[1] Robert J. Maxie, pro se, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence. Maxie raises one issue which we revise and restate as whether the trial court erred in denying his motion. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On December 5, 1995, the State charged Maxie with burglary as a class B felony and being an habitual offender. In January 1996, the State also charged Maxie with residential entry as a class D felony. In January 1997, the trial court sentenced Maxie as follows:

Upon Count I, Burglary, the Court imposes a sentence of 12 years to the Department of Corrections. On Count II, Residential Entry, the Court will impose a sentence of 2 years to the Department of Corrections to run concurrent to Count I. On Count III, the Habitual Offender, the Court will impose a sentence of 20 years to the Department of Corrections, to be consecutive to the burglary and residential entry, and consecutive to 94CF547. The total effective sentence is 32 years.

Appellant's Appendix at 13.

[3] On direct appeal, Maxie argued that the trial court erred in instructing the jury, and this court affirmed. Maxie v. State, No. 71A03–9705–CR–171, slip op. at 2 (Ind.Ct.App. February 19, 1998). In February 2007, Maxie filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief, and the post-conviction court denied his petition in July 2008. On appeal, this court affirmed the post-conviction court's denial of Maxie's petition. Maxie v. State, No. 71A05–0809–PC–560, slip op. at 2 (Ind.Ct.App. May 20, 2009), trans. denied.

[4] On December 22, 2009, Maxie filed a Motion to Amend Erroneous Sentence.¹ On January 25, 2010, the trial court denied Maxie's motion. Maxie did not appeal the court's order.

[5] On August 13, 2014, Maxie, pro se, filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence arguing that his sentence was erroneous because the trial court erred “in exceeding its legislative authorization when it imposed Consecutive Habitual–Offender sentence enhancements at a single criminal trial.” Appellant's Appendix at 21. In a memorandum attached to his motion, Maxie argued that the trial court improperly sentenced him “for the habitual offender Count III to run ‘Consecutively’ to ... Count I, Burglary and Count II, Residential Entry....” Id. at 24. He alleged that “to correct this matter the court would have to resentence [him] and order that the habitual-offender enhancement in this Cause No. 71d04–9512–CF–00571 be served ‘Concurrent’ to ... count I and II.” Id. at 25. He also asserted that he has completely served his maximum fixed term sentence on Counts I and II, and that after parole revocation he was returned back to prison to serve out the remainder of his sentence for the habitual offender status “which at this moment is standing alone and can not be attached to a sentence that has been fully severed [sic], because the Court lack [sic] jurisdiction. ” Id. at 26. He also asked that the court vacate his sentence on the habitual offender status. On October 23, 2014, the State filed a response to Maxie's motion.

[6] On November 25, 2014, the court entered an order which stated: “The Court having reviewed Defendant[']s Motion and finding it alleges same claim as earlier raised by Defendant in December, 2009 and ruled upon by Court on January 25, 2010, Defendant's Motion is denied.” Appellant's Brief at 31.

Discussion

[7] The issue is whether the trial court erred in denying Maxie's motion to correct erroneous sentence. Maxie appears to argue that the trial court failed to specify the underlying felony to which the habitual offender enhancement applied and that the court erred when it found that the same claim was addressed earlier because it did not specify what issues he had raised in December 2009. He asserts that he did not appeal any motion to correct erroneous sentence and the doctrine of res judicata could not apply, and that he should have been paroled in 2002 after completing his twelve-year sentence instead of serving time on the twenty-year habitual offender enhancement. He discusses his credit time classification and the actions of the Sheriff, states that the Department of Correction (“DOC”) should have certified his discharge papers for residential entry to the clerk of the committing trial court, that he is being forced to serve time beyond the statutory limit, and that the Reception Diagnostic Center lacked the subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction for his commitment to the custody of the DOC.

[8] The State argues that the trial court properly denied Maxie's motion based upon res judicata and that Maxie has not provided a record showing that the ruling was erroneous. The State contends that his complaint...