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: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

STEVE PIGG GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Carlisle, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

CYNTHIA L. PLOUGHE

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

STEVE PIGG, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 52A05-1205-CR-318

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE MIAMI CIRCUIT COURT 

The Honorable Robert A. Spahr, Judge 

Cause No. 52C01-9011-CF-84

January 31, 2013

 

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

KIRSCH, Judge 
2

Steve Pigg (“Pigg”) appeals the denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence. 

He raises the following restated issue for our review: whether the trial court abused its 

discretion when it denied his motion on the basis of res judicata.

We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 18, 1991, after pleading guilty to two counts of murder, Pigg was 

sentenced to forty-five years on one count and thirty-five years on the second count to be 

served consecutively for a total of eighty years. The trial court also assessed a $10,000 

fine for each of the murder convictions, but stated that the fine would be suspended if 

Pigg placed a like amount in a trust fund for the benefit of the children of one of the 

victims. At the time of sentencing, Pigg was a minor and was under a guardianship. On 

April 30, 1993, the trial court granted Pigg’s guardian’s motion to terminate the 

guardianship because Pigg had reached the age of eighteen. The trial court further 

ordered that before any of the guardianship funds were released to Pigg, the sum of 

$20,000 of those funds was to be placed in a restricted account for disposition upon 

further order of the court. 

On May 6, 1993, Pigg filed a petition for post-conviction relief, in which he 

challenged the propriety of the $20,000 fine. The petition was denied on April 5, 1994, 

and the denial was upheld on appeal by a panel of this court under cause number 52A02-

9408-PC-460. On June 25, 1998, Pigg filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence, 

where he once again challenged the propriety of the $20,000 fine. The trial court denied 

his motion on July 1, 1998, finding the claim barred by res judicata. The ruling was 
3

affirmed by this court under cause number 52A02-9808-PC-707. On April 4, 2012, Pigg 

filed another motion to correct erroneous sentence, in which he again challenged the 

propriety of the trial court’s ruling ordering the payment of the $20,000. The trial court 

denied Pigg’s motion on the basis of res judicata. Pigg now appeals.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Pigg argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to 

correct erroneous sentence and found that his claims were barred by res judicata. When 

reviewing a trial court’s decision to deny a motion to correct an erroneous sentence, we 

defer to the trial court’s factual findings and review such decision for an abuse of 

discretion. Felder v. State, 870 N.E.2d 554, 560 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Brattain v. 

State, 777 N.E.2d 774, 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)). An abuse of discretion will be found 

only when the trial court’s decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and 

circumstances before it. Id. However, the trial court’s legal conclusions are reviewed 

under a de novo standard of review. Id.

The doctrine of res judicata prevents the repetitious litigation of disputes that are 

essentially the same. Wright v. State, 881 N.E.2d 1018, 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing 

Collins v. State, 873 N.E.2d 149, 157 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied), trans. denied. 

The principle of res judicata is divided into two branches: claim preclusion and issue 

preclusion. Id. at 1022. Claim preclusion applies where a final judgment on the merits 

has been rendered which acts as a complete bar to a subsequent action on the same issue 

or claim between those parties and their privies. Id. (citing Afolabi v. Atlantic Mortg. & 

Inv. Corp., 849 N.E.2d 1170, 1173 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)). Thus, one cannot escape the 
4

effect of claim preclusion merely by using different language to phrase an issue and 

define an alleged error. State v. Holmes, 728 N.E.2d 164, 168 (Ind. 2000) (citing Maxey 

v. State, 596 N.E.2d 908, 911 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992)), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 849 (1997). 

Here, Pigg is challenging the propriety of the $20,000 fine imposed at his 1991 

sentencing. However, he has previously raised challenges to that fine in two other 

petitions. In 1993, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he challenged 

the propriety of the $20,000 fine. He again raised the same challenge in his 1998 motion 

to correct erroneous sentence. Each time, the trial court denied his petition and such 

denials were upheld by this court. In fact, the denial of his 1998 motion was on the basis 

of res judicata. We conclude that Pigg’s present challenge to the fine imposed by the trial 

court is also barred by res judicata. Pigg’s attempt to raise somewhat different 

contentions regarding why he believes the fine was improper does not save his claim. “A 

party may not try his case endlessly and piecemeal. There must be an end to litigation at 

some point.” State v. Gurecki, 247 Ind. 218, 223, 214 N.E.2d 392, 394 (1966). This is 

Pigg’s third challenge to the same part of his sentence. We, therefore, conclude that the 

trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Pigg’s motion and found it barred 

by res judicata.

Further, the denial of Pigg’s motion was proper because a motion to correct 

erroneous sentence was not the correct procedure to challenge the trial court’s imposition 

of the $20,000 fine. Use of the motion to correct erroneous sentence is appropriate only 

when the sentence is “erroneous on its face.” Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 786 

(Ind. 2004). It should be narrowly confined to claims apparent from the face of the 
5

sentencing judgment, and the “facially erroneous” prerequisite should henceforth be 

strictly applied. Id. at 787. Claims that require consideration of the proceedings before, 

during, or after trial may not be presented by way of a motion to correct erroneous 

sentence. Id. “When claims of sentencing errors require consideration of matters outside 

the face of the sentencing judgment, they are best addressed promptly on direct appeal 

and thereafter via post-conviction relief proceedings where applicable.” Id.

Here, Pigg made three claims against the trial court’s imposition of the $20,000 

fine. Two of those claims mention a hold that the trial court placed on Pigg’s funds. 

However, the actual sentencing order did not make any reference to a hold on the funds at 

issue; instead, the trial court only imposed a $10,000 fine for each conviction and stated 

that the fine would be suspended if the same amount of money was placed in a trust for 

the victim’s children. Appellant’s App. at 23. Therefore, the claims are referencing 

something not on the face of the sentencing order. The third claim challenged the 

authority that another individual may or may not have over Pigg’s funds. Again, to fully 

address that claim, it would be necessary to consider things outside the face of the 

sentencing order to demonstrate the guardianship relationship. None of Pigg’s claims 

were able to be reached without consideration of material outside the face of the 

sentencing order, and a motion to correct erroneous sentence was therefore not the 

appropriate procedure. The trial court properly denied Pigg’s motion to correct erroneous 

sentence.

Affirmed.

MATHIAS, J., and CRONE, J., concur.