Brian Woodring v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 55A01-1602-PC-327

In 2010 Woodring pleaded guilty to child molesting (Class C) and obscene performance (Class D), admitted repeat sexual offender status, and agreed to an aggregate 21-year sentence (consecutive to Johnson County sentences) that included a 10-year repeat-offender enhancement; in exchange the State dismissed a Class A child-molesting count.
The plea agreement specified executed and probation portions for each count; Woodring later filed a post-conviction petition (amended 2015) alleging the State breached the plea and that his sentence was illegal.
Woodring sought correction of the trial court’s sentencing order and abstract of judgment to show he was not an SVP and that he would not be placed on parole because he was required to leave the country.
The post-conviction court denied relief; Woodring appealed, raising breach-of-plea-agreement and illegal-sentence claims.
The court held it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under Post-Conviction Rule 1 to grant the requested corrections as a breach-of-plea remedy and declined to revise the sentence because Woodring agreed to (and benefited from) the 10-year enhancement in the plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Woodring)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the State breached the plea agreement by not ensuring the sentencing order/abstract reflected that Woodring was not an SVP and would not be placed on parole due to requirement to leave the country	The State failed to secure paperwork language reflecting he was not an SVP and would not be paroled because he must leave the country	Post-conviction court lacked authority to grant the corrective relief sought; SVP status operates by statute and cannot be altered by plea paperwork	Court held it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction under Post-Conviction Rule 1 to consider the requested breach remedy and did not address the merits
Whether the 10-year repeat-sex-offender enhancement in Woodring’s plea produced an illegal sentence (arguing max enhancement was 4 years under I.C. § 35-50-2-14(e))	Woodring contended the statutory maximum for the enhancement was 4 years and the 10-year enhancement in his plea was therefore illegal; he asserted he did not know it was illegal when pleading	State argued Woodring agreed to and benefitted from the 10-year enhancement in the plea, and a defendant cannot accept an agreed sentence benefit and later challenge its legality without seeking to withdraw the plea	Court held Woodring cannot attack an agreed, beneficial sentence without seeking to set aside the plea; denial of post-conviction relief affirmed

Fisher v. State, 810 N.E.2d 674 (Ind. 2004) (petitioner in post-conviction proceeding bears burden by preponderance)
Weatherford v. State, 619 N.E.2d 915 (Ind. 1993) (appellate standard when appealing denial of post-conviction relief)
Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 729 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 2000) (reversal of post-conviction factual findings only for clear error)
Campbell v. State, 19 N.E.3d 271 (Ind. 2014) (standards for reviewing post-conviction judgments)
Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35 (Ind. 2004) (defendant may not accept benefit from plea and later challenge agreed sentence without withdrawing plea)
Primmer v. State, 857 N.E.2d 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (distinguishing cases where plea itself did not call for an illegal sentence)
Russell v. State, 34 N.E.3d 1223 (Ind. 2015) (clarifies limits of prior panel opinion and its retroactive effect)
Members v. State, 851 N.E.2d 979 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (scope of post-conviction relief and Rule 1 limits)