Background

• Davis was convicted in Hendricks County in 1997 of multiple counts including altering an identification number, receiving stolen auto parts, and corrupt business influence, with habitual offender status and an aggregate 88-year sentence served consecutively.
• Davis repeatedly sought post-conviction relief and motions to correct erroneous sentence from 1997 onward, with various appellate outcomes supporting some remands and remands for sentencing fixes.
• In 2009 Davis filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence asserting eight perceived mistakes; the trial court denied it, and on the same day Davis moved to amend the motion.
• The trial court denied the motion for leave to amend; Davis appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals arguing Rule 15(A) policy and merits of the erroneous sentence claim.
• The appellate court affirmed the trial court, holding civil procedure rules do not govern criminal sentencing motions and, even if amendable, the claim lacked merit because it required examination beyond the face of the judgment.
• The court concluded the abstract of judgment could not substitute for the formal judgment for purposes of the claim and that the charging information might support a racketeering theory beyond the enumerated offenses.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Davis v. State, 843 N.E.2d 65 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (remand on sentencing issues; authority to impose restitution)
• Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783 (Ind. 2004) (motion to correct erroneous sentence limited to face of judgment)
• Neff v. State, 888 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2008) (abstract of judgment permissible substitute in some counties; facially deficient submission)
• Gaddie v. State, 566 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. 1991) (purpose of motion to correct erroneous sentence; prompt access to remedy)