Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1411-CR-538|July 27, 2015 Page 1 of 7

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

Anthony W. Taylor-El

New Castle, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Karl M. Scharnberg

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Anthony W. Taylor-El,

1

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

July 27, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A05-1411-CR-538

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Amy J. Barbar, 

Magistrate

Cause No. 49G02-9007-CF-91378

Kirsch, Judge.

[1] Anthony W. Taylor-El was convicted of two Class B felonies and one Class D 

felony, and was adjudicated a habitual offender. The sentencing court imposed 

 

1 At the time of his 1991 trial, the defendant’s name was “Anthony W. Taylor.” Appellant’s App. at 24-27.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1411-CR-538|July 27, 2015 Page 2 of 7

an aggregate executed sentence of thirty years. More than twenty years later, 

Taylor-El filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence, contending that the trial 

court failed to specify the conviction to which his habitual offender 

enhancement was attached. On appeal, Taylor-El raises three issues, which we 

consolidate and restate as whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to 

correct erroneous sentence. Because Taylor-El’s abstract of judgment reveals 

that the habitual offender enhancement was attached to the burglary conviction, 

we affirm.2

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Following a jury trial, Taylor-El was convicted of Class B felony burglary, Class 

B felony rape, Class D felony criminal confinement, and was found to be a 

habitual offender. During his sentencing hearing, held on March 13, 1991, the 

sentencing court addressed Taylor-El as follows:

Okay, at this time, sir, as to Burglary, as a Class B felony, I am going 

to sentence you to ten (10) years in the Indiana Department of 

Correction[]. As to Rape, a Class B felony, I’m going to sentence you 

to ten (10) years . . . . As to Confinement, as a Class D felony, I’m 

going to sentence you to one and one-half (11⁄2) years . . . . I am going 

to run those sentences concurrently . . . okay, that means together. As 

far as the finding of Habitual Offender, I’m going to, pursuant to 

statute, enhance the sentence by twenty (20) years. That, I believe, has 

 

2 Taylor-El also raised the issue of whether his “fully served sentences for Burglary, Rape and Confinement 

can be the subject of re-sentencing.” Appellant’s Br. at 1. Because we are affirming the denial of his motion to 

correct erroneous sentence, we need not address this issue.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1411-CR-538|July 27, 2015 Page 3 of 7

to run consecutively, under the law, sir . . . which I believe then, gives 

you a total sentence of thirty (30) years.3

Appellant’s App. at 49-50. 

[3] Relying on the sentencing court’s oral remarks, Taylor-El filed a motion to 

correct erroneous sentence on October 17, 2014, claiming that his sentence was 

erroneous on its face because the sentencing court’s oral statement failed to 

attach the habitual offender enhancement to a specific conviction. Taylor-El 

argued that this error required the trial court “to correct the sentence as it 

regards the habitual offender status.” Appellant’s App. at 15. About ten days 

later, the trial court summarily denied the motion, noting in pertinent part that 

this was not a “facially deficient issue.” Id. at 12. Taylor-El now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

[4] Taylor-El claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to correct 

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

erroneous sentence only for an abuse of discretion. Davis v. State, 978 N.E.2d 

470, 472 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial 

court’s decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances 

before it. Id. While we defer to the trial court’s factual determinations, we 

 

3

For clarification, we note that the State was mistaken in asserting that Taylor-El was sentenced to thirty 

years for the burglary, enhanced by twenty years for the habitual offender finding, for an aggregate sentence 

of fifty years. Appellee’s Br. at 2. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1411-CR-538|July 27, 2015 Page 4 of 7

review legal conclusions de novo. Woodcox v. State, 30 N.E.3d 748, 750 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2015), trans. denied.

[5] Our court has said that it is in the best interests of all concerned that a 

sentencing error be immediately discovered and corrected. Robinson v. State,

805 N.E.2d 783, 786 (Ind. 2004); Woodcox, 30 N.E.3d at 750-51. “In general, a 

motion to correct error under Indiana Trial Rule 59 or a direct appeal are the 

best options for remedying an erroneous sentence.” Woodcox, 30 N.E.3d at 751. 

“Thereafter, a petition for post-conviction relief may be filed on any claims that 

have been properly preserved.” Id. Nevertheless, regardless of the fact that 

more than two decades have passed since Taylor-El was sentenced, “Indiana 

law provides an alternate remedy to correct an erroneous sentence” pursuant to 

Indiana Code section 35-38-1-15.4Id.

[6] A motion to correct sentence under Indiana Code section 35-38-1-15 is 

appropriate for “sentencing errors that are clear from the face of the judgment 

imposing the sentence in light of the statutory authority.” Id. (citing Robinson,

805 N.E.2d at 787). A sentence is defective on its face if it violates express 

statutory authority at the time the sentence is pronounced, as when the sentence 

 

4

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.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1411-CR-538|July 27, 2015 Page 5 of 7

fails to show the conviction to which the habitual offender finding is attached. 

See Bauer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 744, 747 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (case remanded to 

trial court with instructions to show habitual offender finding is attached to and 

enhances specific conviction), trans. denied.

[7] Here, there appears to be a discrepancy between the oral sentencing statement, 

which does not specify which conviction is being enhanced by the habitual 

offender finding, and Taylor-El’s written abstract of judgment, which provided, 

“COUNT ONE ENHANCED BY 20 YEARS AS DEFENDANT BEING 

PROVEN AN HABITUAL OFFENDER.” Appellant’s App. at 57. 

[8] Our Supreme Court has said, “As a general rule, when we are faced with a 

discrepancy between a sentencing order and an abstract of judgment, we 

conclude that the sentencing statement rather than the abstract of judgment 

controls.” McElroy v. State, 865 N.E.2d 584, 588 (Ind. 2007). This is so because 

an abstract of judgment is a “‘form issued by the Department of Correction and 

completed by trial judges for the convenience of the Department.’” Id. (quoting 

Robinson, 805 N.E.2d at 792). “In contrast, a valid written judgment meets the 

statutory criteria of Indiana Code section 35-38-3-2.” Id. at 588-89. 

[9] That being said, our Supreme Court has recognized that “Marion County 

historically has not issued the judgment of conviction and sentence referred to 

in I.C. § 35-38-3-2.” Alexander v. State, 4 N.E.3d 1169, 1170 n.2 (Ind. 2014) 

(citing Neff v. State, 888 N.E.2d 1249, 1251 (Ind. 2008)). Therefore, when a 

defendant, like Taylor-El, “files a motion to correct an erroneous sentence in a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1411-CR-538|July 27, 2015 Page 6 of 7

county that does not issue judgments of conviction[,] . . . the trial court’s 

abstract of judgment will serve as an appropriate substitute for purposes of 

making the claim.” Neff, 888 N.E.2d at 1251. 

[10] Taylor-El fails to cite to the abstract of judgment, which clearly sets forth that 

the habitual offender enhancement was attached to the burglary conviction. 

Appellant’s App. at 57. The abstract of judgment, on its face, reveals no error in 

Taylor-El’s sentencing. Furthermore, Taylor-El’s claim of erroneous sentence 

arising from the oral sentencing statement—a claim that would require 

examination of matters beyond the face of the abstract of judgment—“must be 

addressed via direct appeal or post-conviction relief.”

5

 Neff, 888 N.E.2d at

1251; see Robinson, 805 N.E.2d at 787 (Supreme Court 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 trial may not be presented by way of a motion to correct sentence.”) 

The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Taylor-El’s motion to 

correct erroneous sentence.

[11] Affirmed.

 

5 The trial court also denied Taylor-El’s motion to correct erroneous sentence because it had “Previously 

been adjudicated in a PCR.” Appellant’s App. at 12. Taylor-El does not address this contention in his brief,

and we find nothing in the record before us relating to a post-conviction proceeding. That being said, the 

result of Taylor-El’s claim would be the same—his sentence would not be changed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1411-CR-538|July 27, 2015 Page 7 of 7

Vaidik, C.J., and Bradford, J., concur.