Waters v. State, 79A05-9806-PC-295
| Decision Date | 17 December 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 79A05-9806-PC-295,79A05-9806-PC-295 |
| Citation | 703 N.E.2d 688 |
| Parties | Alex E. WATERS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Following a jury trial in January of 1993, Alex E. Waters was convicted of Possession of Cocaine within One Thousand (1,000) Feet of a School, a class B felony, Dealing in Cocaine within One Thousand (1,000) Feet of a School, a class A felony, and Conspiracy to Deal Cocaine, a class A felony. He was also found to be an habitual offender and received an aggregate sentence of 70 years. This court affirmed Waters' convictions on direct appeal. Waters v. State, No. 79A02-9305-CR-209, 637 N.E.2d 1383 (Ind. Ct.App. July 19, 1994). Waters then petitioned, but was denied, post-conviction relief. We affirmed that decision on June 19, 1997. Waters v. State, No. 79A04-9603-PC-89, 681 N.E.2d 792 (Ind. Ct.App. June 19, 1997). On October 8, 1997, this court issued an order denying Waters leave to file his successive petition for post-conviction relief. Waters v. State, No. 79A02-9709-SP-648 (Ind.Ct.App. Oct. 8, 1997). Finally, on February 27, 1998, Waters filed a Motion to Correct Erroneous Sentence, the denial of which he now appeals. The dispositive issue presented for our review is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to address and rule upon Waters' motion to correct erroneous sentence.
We reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss.
Waters makes several claims in his motion to correct erroneous sentence and on appeal. Specifically, he argues that his sentence is invalid because (1) the trial court's written sentencing order allegedly differs from its oral sentencing statement; (2) the court "did not have jurisdiction to resentence [him]," upon the request of [the] State, as the original sentence was legal and no need of correction existed; and (3) his sentence is manifestly unreasonable. The State counters that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Waters' motion pursuant to our supreme court's opinion in State ex rel. Gordon v. Vanderburgh Circuit Court, 616 N.E.2d 8 (Ind.1993). In Gordon, the court stated:
The Indiana Rules of Procedure for Post-Conviction Remedies "comprehends and takes the place of all other common law, statutory, or other remedies heretofore available for challenging the validity of the conviction or sentence and ... shall be used exclusively in place of them." Therefore, a motion to correct erroneous sentence filed pursuant to [Indiana Code] § 35-38-1-15 must be considered a petition for post-conviction relief.
Id. (quoting Ind. Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(b)). Because Waters' first PCR has already been adjudicated, the State insists that his motion constitutes a successive petition for post-conviction relief and, thus, is subject to Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(12). We agree with the State.
Effective January 1, 1994, prisoners desiring to pursue successive petitions for post-conviction relief were required to obtain leave from either the supreme court or the court of appeals before filing a petition for post-conviction relief in the trial court. State ex rel. Woodford v. Marion Superior Court, 655 N.E.2d 63, 65 (Ind.1995). Here, Waters failed to obtain such leave and, thus, the trial court erred...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. State
...cases that have held to the contrary, primarily in the interest of finality. See, e.g., White, 793 N.E.2d at 1132; Waters v. State, 703 N.E.2d 688, 689 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). In the present case, the defendant challenged his sentencing by a motion to correct sentence claiming that the trial cou......
-
White v. State
...leave from either the supreme court or this court before filing a successive petition in the post-conviction court. Waters v. State, 703 N.E.2d 688, 689 (Ind.Ct. App.1998),trans. denied. If a convicted person files a successive petition in the post-conviction court without obtaining such le......
-
Taylor v. State, 48A04-1405-CR-220
...of finality in requiring defendants to obtain permission to file a successive post-conviction relief. See, e.g., Waters v. State, 703 N.E.2d 688, 689 (Ind.Ct.App. 1998), trans. denied. The Robinson holding would seem to undermine relying upon res judicata as a basis for denying a motion to ......
-
Taylor v. State
...of finality in requiring defendants to obtain permission to file a successive post-conviction relief. See, e.g., Waters v. State, 703 N.E.2d 688, 689 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), trans. denied. The Robinson holding would seem to undermine relying upon res judicata as a basis for denying a motion t......