Robinson v. State, No. 45A03-0209-PC-303.
| Docket Nº | No. 45A03-0209-PC-303. |
| Citation | 783 N.E.2d 1206 |
| Case Date | February 27, 2003 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
783 N.E.2d 1206
Jesse E. ROBINSON, Appellant-Defendant,v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
No. 45A03-0209-PC-303.
Court of Appeals of Indiana.
February 27, 2003.
Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Zachary J. Stock, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
OPINION
MATHIAS, Judge.
Jesse E. Robinson ("Robinson") was found guilty of attempted murder,1 a Class A felony, after a jury trial in the Superior Court of Lake County and sentenced to thirty years executed in the Department of Correction. Robinson, pro se, appeals raising one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court properly denied his motion to correct erroneous sentence. Finding that the trial court erred when it denied Robinson's motion, we reverse.
Facts and Procedural History
Robinson was found guilty of attempted murder, a Class A felony, after a jury trial, and on February 26, 1986, the trial court sentenced him to thirty years executed in the Department of Correction. The trial court also stated:
He's to be given credit for service of his sentence for one hundred eighty-seven days spent in confinement as a result of the criminal charge for which this sentence is imposed, and the court recommends said credit of days be considered in assessing credit for good time conduct, as provided by law.
Tr. p. 10.
On July 23, 2002, Robinson filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence, claiming that the trial court improperly credited his sentence with time served and credit time. The motion was denied. On August 12, 2002, Robinson filed a motion to correct error, which was also denied. Robinson now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
Although the preferred procedure for presenting a sentencing error is a petition for post-conviction relief, a motion to correct erroneous sentence may be used to correct those errors where the sentence
Robinson argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to correct an erroneous sentence because he actually served one hundred eighty-seven days in the Lake County Jail prior to his sentencing, but he was owed three hundred seventy-four days of credit. He contends that because it is apparent that the trial court did not properly credit his sentence with time served and credit time, we should remand the case to determine the amount of time he actually served before his sentencing.
Indiana Code section 35-50-6-4(a) provides: "A person imprisoned for a crime or imprisoned awaiting trial or sentencing is initially assigned to Class I." Ind.Code § 35-50-6-4(a) (1998). Additionally, Indiana Code section 35-50-6-3(a) states: "A person assigned to Class I earns one (1) day of credit time for each day he is imprisoned for a crime or confined awaiting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. State, No. 45S03-0307-PC-314.
...and credit time. The trial court summarily denied the motion. The Court of Appeals initially reversed this judgment. Robinson v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1206 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003). On rehearing, however, it withdrew its previous opinion and affirmed the trial court. Robinson v. State, 789 N.E.2d 965......
-
Halsema v. State, No. 79A02-0207-CR-545.
...that because the jury believed that he constructively possessed the contraband in the vehicle, they should have only believed that he 783 N.E.2d 1206 constructively possessed the methamphetamine in the vehicle, and not at Whiteley's residence, which was within 1000 feet of a school. Br. of ......
-
Robinson v. State, No. 45S03-0307-PC-314.
...and credit time. The trial court summarily denied the motion. The Court of Appeals initially reversed this judgment. Robinson v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1206 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003). On rehearing, however, it withdrew its previous opinion and affirmed the trial court. Robinson v. State, 789 N.E.2d 965......
-
Halsema v. State, No. 79A02-0207-CR-545.
...that because the jury believed that he constructively possessed the contraband in the vehicle, they should have only believed that he 783 N.E.2d 1206 constructively possessed the methamphetamine in the vehicle, and not at Whiteley's residence, which was within 1000 feet of a school. Br. of ......