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:

KEVIN L. GOVAN GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Pendleton, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

KARL M. SCHARNBERG

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

KEVIN L. GOVAN, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 02A05-1111-CR-663

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Judge

Cause No. 02D04-0411-FB-196

June 22, 2012

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MAY, Judge
2

Kevin Govan appeals the denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence. We 

affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 24, 2005, the trial court sentenced Govan to an aggregate sentence of forty 

years after a jury determined he committed Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm 

by a serious violent felon,1 Class D felony theft,2and two counts of Class B felony criminal 

confinement.3 Govan appealed, and we affirmed his convictions. Govan v. State, 02A04-

0510-CR-577 (Ind. Ct. App. April 20, 2006), trans. denied.

On October 31, 2011, Govan filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence. On 

November 2, the trial court denied his motion without a hearing. 

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

A motion to correct erroneous sentence may be filed to address a sentence that is 

“erroneous on its face.” Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 786 (Ind. 2004). Claims that 

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

presented in a motion to correct erroneous sentence. Id. at 787. Such claims are best 

addressed on direct appeal or as part of a petition for post-conviction relief if applicable. Id. 

A trial court’s ruling on a motion to correct an erroneous sentence is subject to normal 

appellate procedures. Id. at 786. 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-47-4-7.

2

Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2.

3

Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3.
3

Govan alleged his sentence was erroneous on its face because:

a. The consecutive sentences of the two (2) criminal confinements 

violated Govan’s 5th Amendment Federal Constitutional right which 

protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.

b. The trial courts [sic] imposition of consecutive sentences resulting in an 

aggregate 40 year sentence of [sic] the two (2) criminal confinements 

violation [sic] I.C. § 35-50-1-2(c) (1995 Supp.) which provides that 

except for crimes of violence, the maximum term of consecutive 

sentences arising from the same episode of criminal conduct shall not 

exceed the presumption [sic] (advisory) sentence for the next higher 

class of felony for which the person has been convicted.

(App. at 38-9.) On appeal, Govan presents four issues:

A. Whether the consecutive sentences of the two criminal confinements 

violate Govan’s 5th amendment Federal Constitutional, and Indiana 

Constitution Art.1 § 14, right against double jeopardy, which both 

protects against multiple punishment for the same offense?

B. Whether the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences resulting 

in an aggregate 40 year sentence of the two criminal confinements 

violate [sic] Indiana Code § 35-50-1-2(c) (1995 Supp.) which provides 

that: [sic] except for “crimes of violence,” the maximum term of 

consecutive sentencing arising from the same episode of criminal 

conduct shall not exceed the presumptive sentence for the next higher 

class of felony for which the person has been convicted, and the 

enhancement of I.C. § 35-50-2-11 was improperly attached?

C. Whether the trial court considered improper aggravator’s [sic] for 

purposes of consecutive sentencing, and over looked mitigator’s [sic] 

that is [sic] apart [sic] of the record?

D. Whether Govan’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and the character of the offender?

(Br. of Appellant at 1.)

We note Govan appears pro se. Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as 

licensed attorneys, and are required to follow procedural rules. Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 

338, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. Govan did not present his arguments regarding 
4

the handgun enhancement pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-50-2-11, the aggravators and mitigators 

used to determine his sentence, and the appropriateness of his sentence to the trial court in his 

motion to correct erroneous sentence. An issue may not be raised for the first time on appeal. 

Koons v. State, 771 N.E.2d 685, 691 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied. He therefore has 

waived those arguments. 

The only issue remaining is the imposition of consecutive sentences for Govan’s two 

convictions of criminal confinement. Govan argues the consecutive sentences subject him to 

double jeopardy. In his brief, Govan supports his argument with reference to the charging 

information and the evidence used to convict him, which are both part of the proceedings 

before and during trial. See Ind. Code § 35-34-1-1 (“all prosecutions of crimes shall be 

instituted by the filing of an information”); see also Ind. Code § 35-37-2-2 (listing the 

presentation of evidence as part of the trial proceedings). Because a motion to correct 

erroneous sentence may be utilized only to correct a sentence flawed in a way that does not 

require consideration of the proceedings before, during, or after trial, we may not review 

Govan’s arguments pursuant to a motion to correct erroneous sentence. See Robinson, 805 

N.E.2d at 786 (overruling earlier decision to allow defendant to present argument regarding 

double jeopardy as part of motion to correct erroneous sentence). Accordingly, we affirm the 

denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Affirmed.

FRIEDLANDER, J., and BARNES, J., concur.