Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1485 | December 27, 2018 Page 1 of 4

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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Cara Schaefer Wieneke

Wieneke Law Office, LLC

Brooklyn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Chandra K. Hein

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Reuben Nathaniel Wright,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

December 27, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-1485

Appeal from the Vigo Superior 

Court

The Honorable Sarah K. Mullican, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

84D03-1703-F3-859

Sharpnack, Senior Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1485 | December 27, 2018 Page 2 of 4

Statement of the Case

[1] Reuben Nathaniel Wright appeals the sentence the trial court imposed after 

Wright pleaded guilty but mentally ill to two counts of attempted aggravated

battery, both Level 3 felonies.1 He further admitted to being an habitual 

offender.2 We reverse and remand with instructions.

Issue

[2] Wright raises one issue, which we restate as: whether there is an error in the 

abstract of judgment that requires correction.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] The State charged Wright with two counts of attempted aggravated battery and 

six other felonies, and with being an habitual offender, following an encounter 

with police officers and fire fighters. Wright and the State negotiated a plea 

agreement, pursuant to which Wright agreed to plead guilty but mentally ill to 

two counts of attempted aggravated battery and to being an habitual offender. 

The State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges. The parties further agreed 

to cap Wright’s sentence at twenty years.

[4] The trial court accepted the plea agreement. At the end of the sentencing 

hearing, the court told the parties that Wright would serve nine years on each 

 

1

Ind. Code §§ 35-42-2-1.5 (2014), 35-41-5-1 (2014).

2

Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (2017).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1485 | December 27, 2018 Page 3 of 4

Level 3 felony conviction, to be served concurrently, with one of those

sentences enhanced by an additional eight years due to the habitual offender 

enhancement.

[5] The court further issued a sentencing judgment stating that Wright was 

sentenced to nine years on each Level 3 felony, to be served concurrently, and 

“[t]he sentence imposed in Count 1 herein shall be enhanced by a period of 

eight (8) years as a result of [Wright’s] admission that he is an Habitual 

Offender.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2, p. 111. Finally, the court issued an 

abstract of judgment,

3

but the abstract showed that the sentencing enhancement 

was applied to both Level 3 felony convictions. This appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Wright argues the abstract of judgment must be corrected because it appears 

that the habitual offender sentencing enhancement was erroneously applied to 

both Level 3 felony convictions. The State acknowledges the apparent 

scrivener’s error and agrees “remand is appropriate.” Appellee’s Br. p. 8.

[7] In general, sentencing decisions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Bethea 

v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134, 1139 (Ind. 2013). We review questions of law de 

novo. Russell v. State, 34 N.E.3d 1223, 1227 (Ind. 2015) (quotation omitted). 

“It is the court’s judgment of conviction and not the abstract of judgment that is 

 

3 The abstract of judgment is “a form issued by the Department of Correction and completed by trial judges 

for the convenience of the Department.” Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 792 (Ind. 2004).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1485 | December 27, 2018 Page 4 of 4

the official trial court record and which thereafter is the controlling document.” 

Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 794 (Ind. 2004).

[8] Based upon our review of the sentencing transcript, the sentencing judgment, 

and the abstract of judgment, we conclude the oral pronouncement of sentence 

and the sentencing judgment most accurately reflect the trial court’s stated 

intention to attach the habitual offender sentencing enhancement to the 

sentence for Count 1, the first count of attempted aggravated battery. 

Furthermore, even if the trial court had intended to apply the enhancement to 

both convictions, such an application would violate statutory requirements. See

Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (the enhancement shall be attached “to the felony 

conviction with the highest sentence”). The trial court must issue an amended 

abstract of judgment that applies the habitual offender sentencing enhancement 

to Count I only.

Conclusion

[9] For the reasons stated above, we reverse and remand to the trial court to issue 

an amended abstract of judgment.

[10] Reversed and remanded with instructions.

Najam, J., and Crone, J., concur.