Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1148 | October 20, 2020 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

Tyree Thomas

Bunker Hill, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Josiah Swinney

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Tyree Thomas,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

October 20, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-CR-1148

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Grant W. 

Hawkins, Judge

The Honorable Peggy R. Hart, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49G05-1806-F5-20138

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1148 | October 20, 2020 Page 2 of 5

Statement of the Case

[1] Tyree Thomas (“Thomas”), pro se, appeals the trial court’s order denying his 

motion to correct erroneous sentence. Thomas challenges the executed portion 

of his sentence, arguing that the trial court violated the terms of his plea 

agreement by exceeding the sentencing cap of three years. Because a motion to 

correct erroneous sentence is limited to correcting sentencing errors apparent on 

the face of the judgment and Thomas raises an issue that is not so apparent, 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 Thomas’

motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Facts

[3] In October 2018, the State charged Thomas with Level 5 felony battery with a 

deadly weapon. In December 2018, Thomas and the State entered into a plea 

agreement wherein Thomas pled guilty as charged. According to the plea

agreement: 

The parties are free to argue for an appropriate sentence, but the 

parties agree that the initial executed sentence will be capped at 

three (3) years with placement open to the Court. All other terms, 

including any term of probation is open to the Court.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1148 | October 20, 2020 Page 3 of 5

(App. Vol. 2 at 18). Thereafter, the trial court imposed a five-year sentence 

with two years executed in the Department of Correction, one year in 

community corrections, and two years suspended with one year of probation. 

[4] In May 2020, Thomas filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence. In his 

motion, Thomas challenged the executed portion of his sentence, arguing that 

his sentence exceeded the sentencing cap of three years. The trial court denied 

Thomas’ motion to correct erroneous sentence. Thomas now appeals. 

Decision

[5] Thomas 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). 

[6] An inmate who believes that 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). This statute 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 20A-CR-1148 | October 20, 2020 Page 4 of 5

“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)).

[7] 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.

[8] Here, Thomas appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct erroneous 

sentence, but he does not argue that the sentencing error is clear from the face

of the judgment. Rather, he argues that “the trial court violated the plea 

agreement in this matter when it went outside the prescribed ‘cap’ of 3 years 

total.” (Thomas’ Br. 5). We agree with the State that “[t]he sentencing error of 

which Thomas complains is not clear from the face of the judgment.” (State’s 

Br. 7). Because the error Thomas alleges is not clear from the face of the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1148 | October 20, 2020 Page 5 of 5

sentencing order, it is not appropriate for a motion to correct erroneous 

sentence. See Robinson, 805 N.E.2d at 787. Accordingly, Thomas 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.

[9] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.