Opinion ID: 2067681
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Correction of Sentence in Burr's Absence

Text: Burr was charged with Class A burglary, but the jury returned a verdict of guilty in language supporting only a conviction for class B burglary. At sentencing, the court found that there were not any mitigating or aggravating factors to support any but the standard term and announced it would sentence Burr to 10 years imprisonment for the burglary. The prosecutor, however, told the court incorrectly that the verdict was on a class A burglary as charged, so the judge sentenced Burr to a term of 30 years. Later, during a hearing on Burr's writ of habeas corpus, new counsel argued that Burr was incorrectly sentenced. Burr was personally present during the argument. The judge took the matter under advisement because he did not have the verdict forms with him, but stated he would have to correct Burr's sentence to the presumptive term, 10 years, for the class B burglary if indeed the form of the verdict was as counsel claimed. To this no objection was voiced. Soon thereafter, the court issued an order correcting the judgment of conviction and the sentencing. Burr contends he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because his sentence was corrected in his absence. We disagree. While one does have a right to be present at sentencing, Ind. Code § 35-38-1-4 (Burns 1985 Repl.); Joseph v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 529, 141 N.E.2d 109., Burr cannot show harm from the issuance of the corrected order. He had been present at the formal sentencing hearing, and presented evidence in mitigation. The court considered and rejected proposed factors in mitigation and in aggravation and attempted to imposed the presumptive 10 year term until misinformed as to the verdict. Thus, when the court corrected the sentence back to ten years, it imposed the same sentence it had begun to impose in Burr's presence after hearing the parties' evidence. Furthermore, Burr was present at the habeas corpus hearing when the court was urged to correct his sentence. He did not object to the court's stated intention to impose the ten year term originally intended. That the actual correction of the records was accomplished in Burr's absence was harmless, and a remand would serve no purpose. Royal v. State (1979), 272 Ind. 151, 396 N.E.2d 390. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. GIVAN, C.J., and DeBRULER, PIVARNIK and DICKSON, JJ., concur.