Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-CR-2337 | July 31, 2017 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.

APPELLANT PRO SE

Jamie C. Carson, Sr.

Pendleton Correctional Facility

Pendleton, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Ian McLean

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jamie C. Carson, Sr.,

Appellant-Petitioner,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Respondent

July 31, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1610-CR-2337

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Lisa F. Borges, 

Judge

The Honorable Anne Flannelly, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49G04-9910-PC-189843

Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-CR-2337 | July 31, 2017 Page 2 of 3

Case Summary

[1] Jamie C. Carson, Sr., appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct 

erroneous sentence. Carson claims that the trial court erred in denying his 

motion. Finding no error, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On October 28, 1999, Carson committed the crimes, involving two separate 

victims, from which this appeal stems. Carson was originally charged with 

thirty-seven counts. On November, 30, 2000, the State amended the 

information and charged Carson with two counts of class A felony criminal 

deviate conduct, class A felony robbery, class A felony attempted robbery, two 

counts of class B felony criminal confinement, and class A misdemeanor 

carrying a handgun without a license. Following a bench trial, the trial court 

found Carson guilty of all seven charges. The trial court imposed an aggregate 

sentence of 120 years. 

[3] Carson appealed, and this Court affirmed his convictions and sentence. Carson 

v. State, No. 49A05-0206-CR-260 (Ind. Ct. App. May 28, 2003), trans. denied.

Thereafter, Carson sought postconviction relief. Another panel of the court

concluded that appellate counsel offered ineffective assistance for failing to 

argue that the sentences on counts 4 and 5 violated the consecutive sentencing 

statute, and remanded with instructions to enter a sentence of fifty-five years for 

counts 4 and 5. Carson v. State, No. 49A05-1502-PC-69, 2015 WL 8479530, at 

*12-13 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2015), trans. denied (2016).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-CR-2337 | July 31, 2017 Page 3 of 3

[4] On September 9, 2016, Carson filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence, 

claiming that his sentence violated double jeopardy principles. The trial court 

denied the motion that same day. This appeal followed. 

Discussion and Decision

[5] Carson appeals the trial court’s ruling on his motion to correct erroneous 

sentence. Our supreme court has held that

a motion to correct 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. Claims 

that require consideration of the proceedings before, during, or 

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

sentence.

Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 787 (Ind. 2004). We recently held that a 

double jeopardy claim does not meet the “erroneous on its face” standard 

because it requires consideration of matters outside the face of the sentencing 

judgment. Micheau v. State, 74 N.E.3d 567, 569 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. 

denied. Therefore, we affirm. 

[6] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Barnes, J., concur.