Case Title: Floyd F. Laycock v. State of Indiana, Teodoro V. Garcia v. State of Indiana and James F. Glass, Sr. v. State of Indiana

Citation: 

Docket Number: 11S04-0403-PC-117, 45S03-0403-PC-116, 49S02-0403-PC-115

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2004-03-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
Appellant pro se                        Attorneys for Appellee  Lloyd F. Laycock                            Stephen R. Carter Bunker Hill, Indiana                        Attorney General 
                                 Gary Damon Secrest                                 Deputy Attorney General                                 Indianapolis, Indiana  ______________________________________________________________________________   In the  Indiana Supreme Court  _________________________________ 
 No. 11S04-0403-PC-117     Floyd F. Laycock,                    Appellant (Defendant below),  v.    State of Indiana,                    Appellee (Plaintiff below). _________________________________ 
 Appeal from the Clay Circuit Court, No. 11C01-9202-CF-11  The Honorable Ernest E. Yelton, Judge _________________________________ 
 On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 11A04-0305-PC-245  _________________________________ 
    Appellant Pro Se                        Attorneys for Appellee  Teodoro V. Garcia                        Stephen R. Carter Bunker Hill, Indiana                        Attorney General                                                                  Gary Damon Secrest                                 Deputy Attorney General                                 Indianapolis, Indiana  ______________________________________________________________________________  No. 45S03-0403-PC-116    Teodoro V. Garcia,                                 Appellant (Defendant below),  v.   State of Indiana,                                 Appellee (Plaintiff below). _________________________________ 
 Appeal from the Lake Superior Court, No. 45D02-9107-CF-147  The Honorable Clarence D. Murray, Judge _________________________________ 
 On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 45A03-0305-PC-198  _________________________________ 
   Appellant pro se                        Attorney for Appellee  James F. Glass, Sr.                        Stephen R. Carter Bunker Hill, Indiana                        Attorney General  ______________________________________________________________________________  No. 49S02-0403-PC-115     James F. Glass, Sr.,                    Appellant (Defendant below),  v.    State of Indiana,                    Appellee (Plaintiff below). _________________________________ 
 Appeal from the Marion Criminal Court, No. CR87-122 F  The Honorable Jane Magnus Stinson, Judge _________________________________ 
 On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-0307-PC-636  _________________________________    March 10, 2004   Dickson, Justice. 
     We address these three cases in a single consolidated opinion because of their procedural similarity and because they present the same issue. Defendants Floyd F. Laycock, Teodoro V. Garcia, and James F. Glass each seek transfer from an order of the Court of Appeals dismissing their respective appeals. Each appeal sought to challenge the denial of a motion to correct sentence, challenging the trial court's failure to designate on the abstract of judgment the amount of credit time earned for pre-sentence confinement. In each of these cases, the defendants had previously completed a post-conviction proceeding. Treating the motions to correct sentence as successive petitions for post-conviction relief, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals on grounds that the defendants each failed to comply with Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(12), which permits the filing of such successive petitions only upon prior authorization by the court. As to each case, we grant transfer and affirm the judgment of the trial court.       As we hold today in Robinson v. State, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 2004), a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Indiana Code § 35-38-1-1 asserting a claim that is susceptible to determination from the face of the sentencing judgment is not in the nature of a post-conviction proceeding and is not subject to the requirement for prior authorization in P-C R. 1(2). Id. at ___ (slip opin. at 5). The defendants' appeals are not subject to dismissal on this ground.  
     Each of these appeals is grounded upon the claim that the trial court's entries on the Department of Correction's abstract of judgment form violated Indiana Code § 35-38-3-2(a) which requires the sentencing judgment to include the time spent in pre-sentence confinement and also the amount of credit time earned for said confinement. Each defendant's appeal complains only of this omission in the abstract of judgment and does not allege any omission in the trial court's sentencing judgment. Entries in the abstract of judgment may not be challenged by a motion to correct sentence. Robinson v. State, ___ N.E.2d at ___ (slip opinion at 14-15). For this reason, the trial courts did not err in rejecting the motion to correct sentence filed by each of these defendants  
 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in each case.   Shepard, C.J., and Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.