Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1449 | October 31, 2018 Page 1 of 5

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.

APPELLANT PRO SE

Terry Hodge

Michigan City, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Chandra K. Hein

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Terry A. Hodge,

Appellant-Defendant,

v. 

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

October 31, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-1449 

Appeal from the Lake Superior 

Court

The Honorable Diane R. Boswell, 

Judge

The Honorable Kathleen A. 

Sullivan, Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

45G03-0509-FC-120 

Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1449 | October 31, 2018 Page 2 of 5

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

[1] Appellant-Defendant, Terry Hodge (Hodge), appeals the trial court’s denial of 

his motion to correct erroneous sentence.

[2] We affirm.

ISSUE

[3] Hodge presents one issue on appeal: Whether the trial court abused its 

discretion when it denied his motion to correct erroneous sentence. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[4] On November 9, 1993, the State charged Hodge with felony murder; murder;

attempted robbery, a Class A felony; attempted murder, a Class A felony; and 

carrying a handgun without a license, a Class D felony. The State also alleged 

that Hodge was an habitual offender. On September 16, 1994, following a jury 

trial, Hodge was found guilty of murder and attempted murder. The jury also 

found that Hodge was an habitual offender. 

[5] On December 6, 1994, the trial court sentenced Hodge to the Indiana 

Department of Correction for forty years for murder and thirty years for 

attempted murder, to be served consecutively. The trial court enhanced 

Hodge’s attempted murder sentence by twenty-five years for being an habitual 

offender. Hodge’s aggregate sentence is ninety-five years. 

[6] Hodge’s convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal by our 

supreme court in 1997 in Hodge v. State, 688 N.E.2d 1246 (Ind. 1997). The 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1449 | October 31, 2018 Page 3 of 5

denials of his petition for post-conviction relief and his successive petition for 

post-conviction relief were affirmed by this court in 2001 and 2010, respectively. 

On May 7, 2018, Hodges filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence in which 

he argued that his sentence must be corrected because the trial court imposed a 

sentence in excess of that allowed for criminal convictions arising out of one 

episode of criminal conduct. On May 11, 2018, the trial court denied Hodge’s 

motion because it found that Hodge’s sentence was not erroneous on its face.

[7] Hodge now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. 

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

[8] Hodge argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his 

motion to correct erroneous sentence. Specifically, he alleges that his 

convictions were subject to a statutory sentencing cap as provided for in Indiana 

Code section 35-50-1-2 for convictions arising out of a single episode of 

criminal conduct and that his sentence is facially erroneous because he was 

sentenced in excess of that cap. 

[9] A defendant may file a motion to correct erroneous sentence pursuant to 

Indiana Code section 35-38-1-15 which provides:

If the convicted person is erroneously sentenced, the mistake 

does not render the sentence void. The sentence shall be 

corrected after written notice is given to the convicted person. 

The convicted person and his counsel must be present when the 

corrected sentence is ordered. A motion to correct sentence must 

be in writing and supported by a memorandum of law 

specifically pointing out the defect in the original sentence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1449 | October 31, 2018 Page 4 of 5

[10] A motion to correct erroneous sentence may only be used to correct sentencing 

errors that are clear from the face of the sentencing judgment in light of 

statutory authority. Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 787 (Ind. 2004). Claims 

that require consideration of the proceedings before, during, or after trial may 

not be presented in a motion to correct erroneous sentence. Id. We review a 

trial court’s denial of a motion to correct erroneous sentence for an abuse of the 

trial court’s discretion. Hobbs v. State, 71 N.E.3d 46, 48 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), 

trans. denied. 

[11] Hodge claims that his sentence is erroneous because it was in excess of that 

allowed for convictions arising out of a single episode of criminal conduct

under sentencing statute Indiana Code section 35-50-1-2. Assuming without 

deciding that Indiana Code section 35-50-1-2 applies to Hodge’s sentence, 

Hodge’s claim of erroneous sentence is unavailing. The term “episode of 

criminal conduct” is defined as “offenses or a connected series of offenses that 

are closely related in time, place, and circumstance.” I.C. 35-50-1-2(b). 

Whether offenses constitute a single episode of criminal conduct is necessarily a 

fact-sensitive inquiry to be determined by the trial court. Schlichter v. State, 779 

N.E.2d 1155, 1157 (Ind. 2002). 

[12] In order to evaluate Hodge’s claim, it would be necessary to evaluate the 

evidence adduced at trial to determine if his convictions were so closely related 

in time, place, and circumstance that they constituted a single episode of 

criminal conduct. That would entail consideration of matters extrinsic to the 

sentencing judgment, which a court is not allowed to do when reviewing a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1449 | October 31, 2018 Page 5 of 5

motion to correct erroneous sentence. Robinson, 805 N.E.2d at 787. This is 

why Hodge’s sentence is not erroneous on its face. As such, we conclude that 

the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Hodge’s motion to 

correct erroneous sentence.

CONCLUSION

[13] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion when it denied Hodge’s motion to correct erroneous sentence 

because his sentence was not facially erroneous. 

[14] Affirmed.

[15] Vaidik, C. J. and Kirsch, J. concur