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:

JAMES R. DIETERLE GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Bunker Hill, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

MICHAEL GENE WORDEN

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

JAMES R. DIETERLE, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 06A05-1304-CR-191

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE BOONE SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Matthew C. Kincaid, Judge

Cause No. 06D01-9810-CF-92

September 19, 2013

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

FRIEDLANDER, Judge
2

James R. Dieterle, pro se, appeals the denial of his motion to correct erroneous 

sentence, challenging the sentence he received following his conviction for arson as a class A 

felony, burglary as a class A felony, and public intoxication as a class B misdemeanor. 

Dieterle presents the following restated issues for review:

1. Is the sentence imposed by the trial court manifestly unreasonable in 

light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender?

2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in enhancing Dieterle’s sentences 

beyond the advisory terms?

We affirm.

Before we address the issues Dieterle presents, we note the State’s contention that 

Dieterle waived these arguments by failing to provide a record sufficient to enable us to 

evaluate his claims. Indeed, the only documentation supplied by Dieterle in conjunction with 

this appeal was the trial court’s sentencing judgment. One would expect all relevant 

documents to be submitted in the appellant’s appendix. See Ind. Appellate Rule 49(a) (“the 

appellant shall file its appendix with its appellant’s brief”); App. R. 50(B) (prescribing the 

contents of the appendix in criminal appeals). Dieterle failed to file an appendix. In Johnson 

v. State, 756 N.E.2d 965, 967 (Ind. 2001), our Supreme Court indicated that “[t]he better 

practice for an appellate court to follow in criminal appeals where an Appendix is not filed or 

where an Appendix is missing documents required by rule is to order compliance with the 

rules within a reasonable period of time, such as thirty days.” Pursuant to this mandate, on 

July 26, 2013, this court issued an order directing Dieterle “to file an appendix within 30 days 

of the date of this order.” We further indicated that “[t]he failure to comply with this order 
3

subjects this appeal to dismissal or adverse judgment on the merits.” As of the date of this 

opinion, Dieterle has failed to comply with this order. In Johnson, the Supreme Court stated, 

“[i]f an appellant inexcusably fails to comply with an appellate court order, then more 

stringent measures, including dismissal of the appeal, would be available as the needs of 

justice might dictate.” Id. Rather than dismiss the appeal or enter adverse judgment on the 

basis of waiver, we choose to address Dieterle’s claims on the merits.

The facts underlying Dieterle’s conviction of arson, burglary, and public intoxication 

were set out in his direct appeal, as follows:

On October 10, 1998, Dieterle opened the locked door of a building in 

Lebanon, Indiana. He went to the basement, where he piled some papers and 

used his lighter to set fire to them. The fire engulfed the building, which 

eventually collapsed. The residents of the apartments in the building escaped 

the fire, but suffered smoke inhalation. Two firefighters responding to the fire 

were also injured.

Dieterle v. State, No. 06A01-9908-CR-292, slip op. at 1 (Ind. Ct. App. April 28, 2000). 

Following a jury trial that resulted in verdicts of guilty as charged, the trial court found 

several aggravating factors and no mitigating circumstances, and sentenced Dieterle to the 

maximum sentence of fifty years imprisonment on each of his felony convictions, which 

were to be served concurrently.

Upon direct appeal, Dieterle presented two issues. The first consisted of a claim that 

his conviction of both burglary and arson violated double jeopardy principles. The second 

claim was a sentencing challenge. Specifically, he claimed that the trial court cited improper 

aggravating circumstances and imposed an unduly harsh sentence. This court rejected both 

claims and affirmed the trial court.
4

1. & 2.

Both issues presented in this appeal represent challenges to the sentence. In this case, 

the allegations of error stem from the trial court’s ruling on a motion to correct erroneous 

sentence. Such a motion is premised upon Ind. Code Ann. § 35-38-1-15 (West, Westlaw 

current with all 2013 legislation), which 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.

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

process for correcting the occasional erroneous or illegal sentence.’” Wilson v. State, 988 

N.E.2d 1221, 1223 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 785 

(Ind. 2004)). Our Supreme Court has indicated that a motion to correct erroneous sentence is 

appropriate only in limited circumstances. The Court has “repeatedly cautioned that it is 

appropriate only when the sentence is ‘erroneous on its face.’” Robinson v. State, 805 

N.E.2d at 786 (quoting Mitchell v. State, 726 N.E.2d 1228, 1243 (Ind. 2000)). The Court has 

explained that “error on its face” means “errors that are clear from the face of the judgment 

imposing the sentence in light of the statutory authority.” Id. at 1287. On the other hand, 

“[c]laims that require consideration of the proceedings before, during, or after trial may not

be presented by way of a motion to correct sentence.” Id. 

Dieterle’s challenges to the merits of his sentence are not alleged errors limited to the 

face of the sentencing judgment. Instead, Dieterle argues that the trial court abused its 
5

discretion by imposing an inappropriate sentence. This is not a proper claim for a motion to 

correct erroneous sentence because it requires a consideration of the sentencing hearing, the 

presentence investigation report, and other matters that a trial court may properly consider 

when crafting an appropriate sentence. Dieterle should have addressed this claimed error on 

direct appeal or, if applicable, post-conviction relief. He may not do so now. See Godby v. 

State, 976 N.E.2d 1235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). 

Dieterle’s appeal fails for a second reason. “An issue which is raised and determined 

adverse to petitioner’s position is res judicata.” Schiro v. State, 533 N.E.2d 1201, 1204-05 

(Ind. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 910. In his direct appeal, although couched in terms of 

improper aggravating circumstances, Dieterle challenged the length of his sentence. We 

rejected his claim that the trial court cited improper aggravating circumstances and affirmed 

the length of the sentence, based in part upon a consideration of the length of the sentence 

imposed in light of the maximum possible sentence. Therefore, we have already rejected 

Dieterle’s argument that the length of the sentence was inappropriate. We are bound by that 

prior determination, and therefore cannot reconsider the matter in the present appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

BAKER, J., and VAIDIK, J., concur.