Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1511-CR-1926 | May 24, 2016 Page 1 of 3

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Anthony C. Lawrence

Anderson, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Karl M. Scharnberg

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Wendy J. Jordan,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

May 24, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

33A01-1511-CR-1926

Appeal from the Henry Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Mary G. Willis, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

33C01-0803-FA-15

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1511-CR-1926 | May 24, 2016 Page 2 of 3

Statement of the Case

[1] Wendy Jordan appeals the trial court’s denial of her petition for modification of

her sentence. Jordan presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether 

the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her petition. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On August 28, 2008, Jordan pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine, as a Class 

A felony, and, in exchange for her plea, the State dismissed two other felony 

charges. Jordan’s plea agreement provided for a twenty-year sentence in the 

Department of Correction. The trial court accepted Jordan’s guilty plea and 

sentenced her to twenty years executed.

[3] On November 18, 2009, and on September 26, 2013, Jordan filed petitions for 

the modification of her sentence, and the trial court denied those petitions. On 

July 16, 2015, Jordan filed her third petition for modification of her sentence, 

and the prosecutor objected. The trial court denied that petition following a 

hearing. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision 

[4] Jordan contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her 

third petition for modification of her sentence. In particular, Jordan maintains 

that the trial court erroneously concluded that it did not have authority to 

modify her sentence because she had agreed to the twenty-year sentence 

pursuant to her plea agreement. We do not address that issue, however, 

because Jordan’s petition, her third, was prohibited by statute.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1511-CR-1926 | May 24, 2016 Page 3 of 3

[5] Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-17(j) (2015)1 provides in relevant part that a

convicted person who, like Jordan, is not a violent criminal may file a petition 

for sentence modification under this section “a maximum of two (2) times 

during any consecutive period of incarceration” without the consent of the 

prosecutor. Here, because Jordan appeals from the denial of her third petition 

for modification of her sentence and the prosecutor objected to the petition, the 

trial court properly denied it. See, e.g., Vazquez, 37 N.E.3d at 964 (holding in 

relevant part that defendant’s third petition for modification of sentence was 

properly dismissed because it “exceeded the authorized number of filings”).

[6] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.

 

1

 Effective May 5, 2015, Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-17 was amended and “applies to a person who: (1) 

commits an offense; or (2) is sentenced; before July 1, 2014.” Thus, the statute, as amended, applies to 

Jordan. See Vazquez v. State, 37 N.E.3d 962, 964 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).