Jackson v. State, 806 N.E.2d 773 (Ind. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Jackson v. State, 806 N.E.2d 773 (Ind. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“a motion to correct sentence may not be used to court of appeals of indiana memorandum decision 71a05-1702-cr-415 september 14, 2017 page 10 of 11 challenge entries or omissions in an abstract of judgment”
16 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Terrance L. Mitchem v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a motion to correct sentence may not be used to court of appeals of indiana memorandum decision 71a05-1702-cr-415 september 14, 2017 page 10 of 11 challenge entries or omissions in an abstract of judgment
cited Cited as authority (rule) Alfred Williams Comer, Jr. v. State of Indiana
Ind. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Jackson v. State, 806 N.E.2d 773, 774 (Ind. 2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Michael Dowdell v. State of Indiana
Ind. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Id. at 10 (citing Jackson v. State, 806 N.E.2d 773, 774 (Ind. 2004)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carl Johnson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Thus, his argument is not properly presented by way of a motion to correct erroneous sentence.5 We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion.6 See Jackson v. State, 806 N.E.2d 773, 774 (Ind. 2004) (holding that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to correct erroneous sentence and noting that a motion to correct erroneous sentence is available only to correct sentencing errors clear from the face of the judgment); Bauer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 744, 746 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (noting that the defendant’s claims required consideration of matters…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jernigan v. State
Ind. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
However, our supreme court has repeatedly held that "[i]f the actual sentencing judgment reports the number of days of confinement before sentencing, this 'shall be understood by the courts and the Department of Correction automatically to award the number of credit time days equal to the number of pre-sentenc-ing confinement days.’ " Jackson v. State, 806 N.E.2d 773, 774 (Ind.2004) (quoting Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 792 (Ind.2004)).
discussed Cited "see" Damon Nelson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jackson v. State, 806 N.E.2d 773, 774 (Ind. 2004) (holding that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to correct erroneous sentence and noting that a motion to correct erroneous sentence is available only to correct sentencing errors clear from the face of the judgment).
discussed Cited "see" Brandy G. Hoebee v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jackson v. State, 806 N.E.2d 773, 774 (Ind. 2004) (holding that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to correct erroneous sentence and noting that a motion to correct erroneous sentence is available only to correct sentencing errors clear from the face of the judgment). [15] To the extent Hoebee requested that the court issue an amended abstract of judgment and cites to the abstracts of judgment on appeal, we observe that a motion to correct erroneous sentence is not the proper vehicle.
discussed Cited "see" Robert J. Maxie v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jackson v. State, 806 N.E.2d 773, 774 (Ind. 2004) (holding that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to correct erroneous sentence and noting that a motion to 3 At the time of the sentencing, Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (e) provided that the court “shall sentence a person found to be a habitual criminal to an additional fixed term that is not less than the presumptive sentence for the underlying offense nor more than three (3) times the presumptive sentence for the underlying offense.
discussed Cited "see" Kenneth George Wolfe v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jackson v. State, 806 N.E.2d 773, 774 (Ind. 2004) (holding that trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to correct erroneous sentence and noting that motion to correct erroneous sentence is available only to correct sentencing errors clear from face of the judgment); Bauer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 744, 746 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (noting that defendant’s claims required consideration of matters beyond face of the judgment; accordingly, they are not claims that can properly be presented in motion to correct erroneous sentence), trans. denied. [13] Affirmed.
discussed Cited "see" Jon Holman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jackson v. State, 806 N.E.2d 773, 774 (Ind. 2004) (holding that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to correct erroneous sentence and noting that a motion to correct erroneous sentence is available only to correct sentencing errors clear from the face of the judgment); Bauer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 744, 746 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (noting that the defendant’s claims required consideration of matters in the record outside the face of the judgment and accordingly they are not the types of claims that are properly presented in a motion to correct erroneous sentence), trans. d…
discussed Cited "see" Robert D. Davis v. State of Indiana
Ind. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jackson v. State, 806 N.E.2d 773, 774 (Ind.2004) (holding that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to correct *475 erroneous sentence and noting that a motion to correct erroneous sentence is available only to correct sentencing errors clear from the face of the judgment); Bauer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 744, 746 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (noting that the defendant’s claims required consideration of matters in the record outside the face of the judgment and accordingly they are not the types of claims that are properly presented in a motion to correct erroneous sentence), trans. …
discussed Cited "see" Stephen R. Harvey, Jr. v. State of Indiana
Ind. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jackson v. State, 806 N.E.2d 773, 774 (Ind. 2004) (holding that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to correct erroneous sentence and noting that a motion to correct erroneous sentence is available only to correct sentencing errors clear from the face of the judgment); Bauer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 744, 746 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (noting that the defendant’s claims required consideration of matters in the record outside the face of the judgment and accordingly they are not the types of claims that are properly presented in a motion to correct erroneous sentence), trans. d…
discussed Cited "see" Edwin D. Calligan v. State of Indiana
Ind. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jackson v. State, 806 N.E.2d 773, 774 (Ind. 2004) (holding that the trial court properly denied the defendant‟s motion to correct erroneous sentence and noting that a motion to correct erroneous sentence is available only to correct sentencing errors clear from the face of the judgment); Bauer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 744, 746 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (noting that the defendant‟s claims required consideration of matters in the record outside the face of the judgment and accordingly they are not the types of claims that are properly presented in a motion to correct erroneous sentence), trans. d…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Portee v. State (2×)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Jackson v. Indiana, 2004 WL 453510 , 806 N.E.2d 773 (Ind.2004) ("[a] motion to correct sentence may not be used to challenge entries or omissions in an abstract of judgment"); Laycock v. State, 805 N.E.2d 796, 798 (Ind.2004) ("[elutries in the abstract of judgment may not be challenged by a motion to correct sentence").
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Clifton J. JACKSON, Appellant (Petitioner Below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below)
45S03-0403-CR-122.
Indiana Supreme Court.
Mar 11, 2004.
806 N.E.2d 773
Clifton J. Jackson, Bunker Hill, IN, Appellant Pro Se., Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Andrew A. Kobe, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Dickson, Shepard, Sullivan, Boehm, Rucker.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

ON PETITION TO TRANSFER FROM THE INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS, NO. 45A03-0805-CR-194.

DICKSON, Justice.

Defendant Clifton J. Jackson appeals from the denial of his motion to correct sentence, which alleged that the abstract of judgment did not properly credit his sentence with both time served and credit time. Applying the principles of Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783 (Ind.2004), we affirm the trial court. A motion to correct sentence may not be used to challenge entries or omissions in an abstract of judgment.

Following his guilty plea to robbery, a Class B felony, and two counts of attempted robbery, each as a class B felony, the trial court on March 20, 2001, sentenced the defendant to three concurrent terms of twenty years. The appellant's appendix does not contain the sentencing judgment or the abstract of judgment. The chronological case summary notation of the sentencing judgment includes only the following reference to credit for time served or credit time: "1182 er days." The defendant filed a motion to correct sentence on April 3, 2008, with an accompanying memorandum, seeking "an amended abstract of judgment be forwarded to the Ind. Dept. of Correction, showing ... 2264 days." The trial court summarily denied the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a determination of eredit[*774] Jackson v. State, 799 N.E.2d 551 We grant the State's time. (Ind.Ct.App.2008). petition to transfer.

A motion to correct sentence is available only to correct sentencing errors clear from the face of the judgment, and is not available to challenge entries or omissions in an abstract of judgment. Robinson, 805 N.E.2d at 798-94. Because the defendant here challenged his abstract of judgment, not his sentencing judgment, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to correct sentence.

We further observe that both the State and the defendant agree that he was incarcerated 1132 days prior to sentencing, the same number noted in the chronological case summary's notation of "1132 er days." If the actual sentencing judgment reports the number of days of confinement before sentencing, this "shall be understood by courts and by the Department of Correetion automatically to award the number of credit time days equal to the number of pre-sentence confinement days." Id. at 791-98.

Transfer is granted. We affirm the judgment of the trial court denying the defendant's motion to correct sentence.

SHEPARD, C.J., and SULLIVAN, BOEHM, and RUCKER, JJ., concur.