Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-743 | August 23, 2019 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

Nathan Hummel

Westville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Sierra A. Murray

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Nathan D. Hummel,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

August 23, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-743

Appeal from the Starke Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Kim Hall, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

75C01-1112-FA-15

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-743 | August 23, 2019 Page 2 of 5

Statement of the Case

[1] Nathan Hummel (“Hummel”), pro se, appeals the trial court’s order denying 

his motion to correct erroneous sentence. Hummel challenges the trial court’s 

imposition of a consecutive sentence, arguing that the plea agreement did not 

specify a consecutive sentence. Because a motion to correct erroneous sentence 

is limited to correcting sentencing errors apparent on the face of the judgment 

and Hummel raises an issue outside of this context, we conclude that the trial 

court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion to correct erroneous 

sentence.

[2] We affirm. 

Issue

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Hummel’s 

motion to correct erroneous sentence. 

Facts

[3] In December 2011, the State charged Hummel with Count 1, Class A felony 

dealing a narcotic drug; Count 2, Class B felony robbery; Count 3, Class B 

felony robbery (aiding, inducing, or causing); Count 4, Class C felony 

disarming an officer; Count 5, Class D felony resisting law enforcement; and 

Count 6, Class D felony criminal mischief. In 2012, Hummel entered into a 

plea agreement and pled guilty to an amended Count 1 and Counts 2, 3, and 4. 

In exchange, the State agreed to amend Count 1 from a Class A felony to a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-743 | August 23, 2019 Page 3 of 5

Class B felony and to dismiss Counts 5 and 6. The plea agreement provided 

that “[t]he sentences in count II, count III, and count IV shall run 

concurrently.” (App. 18).

[4] Thereafter, in May 2012, the trial court sentenced Hummel to fifteen (15) years

for amended Count 1, ten (10) years for Count 2, ten (10) years for Count 3,

and two (2) years for Count 4. The trial court ordered Counts 2, 3, and 4 to run 

concurrently and amended Count 1 to run consecutively to Counts 2, 3, and 4.

[5] Seven years later, in January 2019, Hummel filed a motion to correct erroneous 

sentence. In his motion, Hummel challenged the trial court’s imposition of 

amended Count 1 running consecutively to Counts 2, 3, and 4. The trial court 

denied Hummel’s motion to correct erroneous sentence. Hummel now appeals. 

Decision

[6] Hummel appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct erroneous

sentence. We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to correct erroneous 

sentence for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the trial court’s decision 

is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Davis v. 

State, 978 N.E.2d 470, 472 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). 

[7] An inmate who believes he has been erroneously sentenced may file a motion 

to correct the sentence pursuant to INDIANA CODE § 35-38-1-15. Neff v. State, 

888 N.E.2d 1249, 1250-51 (Ind. 2008). INDIANA CODE § 35-38-1-15 provides:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-743 | August 23, 2019 Page 4 of 5

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. 

“The purpose of the statute ‘is to provide prompt, direct access to an 

uncomplicated legal process for correcting the occasional erroneous or illegal 

sentence.’” Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 785 (Ind. 2004) (quoting Gaddie 

v. State, 566 N.E.2d 535, 537 (Ind. 1991)). 

[8] A statutory motion to correct erroneous sentence “may only be used to correct 

sentencing errors that are clear from the face of the judgment imposing the 

sentence in light of the statutory authority.” Robinson, 805 N.E.2d at 787.

“Such claims may be resolved by considering only the face of the judgment and 

the applicable statutory authority without reference to other matters in or 

extrinsic to the record.” Fulkrod v. State, 855 N.E.2d 1064, 1066 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2006). If a claim requires consideration of the proceedings before, during, or 

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

sentence. Robinson, 805 N.E.2d at 787. “Use of the statutory motion to correct 

sentence should thus be narrowly confined to claims apparent from the face of 

the sentencing judgment, and the ‘facially erroneous’ prerequisite should 

henceforth be strictly applied[.]” Id.

[9] Here, Hummel challenges the trial court’s imposition of amended Count 1 

running consecutively to Counts 2, 3, and 4. Specifically, he argues that his 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-743 | August 23, 2019 Page 5 of 5

“plea agreement does NOT call for consecutive sentences[.]” (Hummel’s Br. 

6). We agree with the State that resolution of this issue “required the trial court 

to consider the proceedings before trial because he asked the court to compare 

his plea agreement to his sentence.” (State’s Br. 6). Because the error Hummel

alleges is not clear from the face of the sentencing order, it is not appropriate for 

a motion to correct erroneous sentence. See Robinson, 805 N.E.2d at 787. 

Accordingly, Hummel has failed to show that the trial court abused its 

discretion by denying his motion, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment. See, 

e.g., Bauer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 744, 746 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (affirming the trial 

court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to correct erroneous sentence where 

the defendant’s claims required consideration of matters in the record outside of 

the face of the judgment and were, accordingly, not the types of claims properly 

presented in a motion to correct erroneous sentence), trans. denied.

[10] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Mathias, J., concur.