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:

JASON L. WANZELL GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Branchville Correctional Facility Attorney General of Indiana

JODI KATHRYN STEIN

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

JASON L. WANZELL, )

)

Appellant-Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) No. 53A01-1311-CR-490

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Respondent. )

APPEAL FROM THE MONROE CIRCUIT COURT

The Honorable Kenneth G. Todd, Judge

Cause No. 53C03-1008-FB-769

September 22, 2014

MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BARNES, Judge
2

Case Summary

Jason Wanzell appeals the denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence. We 

affirm.

Issue

Wanzell raises one issue, which we restate whether the trial court properly denied 

his motion to correct erroneous sentence challenging the amount of restitution imposed 

pursuant to a restitution agreement. 

Facts

In 2011, Wanzell pled guilty to Class B felony burglary and Class D felony 

receiving stolen property. As part of the plea agreement, Wanzell agreed to pay 

restitution in the amount of $5,305.91. The trial court sentenced Wanzell pursuant to the 

terms of the agreement. 

In September 2013, Wanzell filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence, which 

the trial court denied on the basis that Wanzell expressly agreed that the monetary 

restitution was owed by him to the named victims. In October 2013, Wanzell filed an 

amended motion to correct erroneous sentence, which the trial court also denied for the 

same reason. Wanzell now appeals.1

Analysis

Wanzell argues that the denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence was 

improper because the restitution order was not supported by evidence of the victims’ 

 

1

 Neither of the motions to correct erroneous sentence is included the appendix. Based on the trial 

court’s orders denying the motions and the issues raised on appeal, we presume the motions challenged 

the propriety of the restitution order. 
3

losses and the amount of restitution ordered exceeded the victims’ actual losses. Wanzell 

also argues that, although he agreed to the restitution order, the lack of factual basis to 

support the amount of restitution ordered resulted in an illegal sentence. 

We review a trial court’s decision on a motion to correct erroneous sentence only 

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). An inmate who believes he or she has been erroneously 

sentenced may file a motion to correct the sentence pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-

38-1-15. Neff v. State, 888 N.E.2d 1249, 1250-51 (Ind. 2008). Indiana Code Section 35-

38-1-15 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.

“[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.” Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 787 (Ind. 2004). “Claims that require 

consideration of the proceedings before, during, or after trial may not be presented by 

way of a motion to correct sentence.” Id. “When claims of sentencing errors require 

consideration of matters outside the face of the sentencing judgment, they are best 

addressed promptly on direct appeal and thereafter via post-conviction relief proceedings 
4

where applicable.” A post-conviction relief proceeding is the proper avenue for 

challenging a guilty plea. Tumulty v. State, 666 N.E.2d 394, 396 (Ind. 1996).

To address the claims raised by Wanzell, the trial court would have had to 

consider matters outside the face of the sentencing judgment—namely whether there was 

a sufficient factual basis to support the order. The purported errors are not clear from the 

face of the sentencing order and are not appropriate for a motion to correct erroneous 

sentence. Wanzell has not established that the trial court abused its discretion in denying 

his motion.

Conclusion

Because the alleged errors in the restitution order are not clear from the face of the 

sentencing order, they are not appropriately raised in a motion to correct erroneous 

sentence. We affirm.

Affirmed. 

BRADFORD, J., and BROWN, J., concur.