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

.
A PPELLANT PRO SE Jamie C. Carson, Sr. Pendleton Correctional Facility Pendleton, Indiana A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Ian McLean Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana



### I N T H E 

# COURT OF APP EALS OF INDIANA
Jamie C. Carson, Sr. , Appellant

- Petitioner ,
v. 

### State of Indiana , Appellee

- Respondent July 31, 2017 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 49A02

- 1610

- CR

- 2337 Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Lisa F. Borges, Judge The Honorable Anne F lannelly, Magistrate Trial Co urt 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 motio n. 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 St ate 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 handg un 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 C ourt affirmed his convictions and sentence. Carson v. State , N o. 49A05

- 0206

- CR

- 260 (Ind. Ct. App. May 28, 2003), trans. denied

. Thereafter, C arson sought postconviction relief. Another panel of the court conclude d that appellate c ounsel 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 fo r 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 corre ct erroneous sentence, claiming that his sentence violated double jeopardy principles. T he 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] Aff

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