Jerry C. Wilson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
09A02-1609-CR-2147
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 28, 2017Background
- In 1992 Jerry C. Wilson was convicted of two counts of Class A felony attempted murder and one count of Class C possession of an explosive; original aggregate sentence was 108 years; appellate reversal vacated the possession conviction leaving 100 years for the two attempted murders.
- Wilson’s post-conviction petition was denied in 2001 and that denial was affirmed.
- Wilson has repeatedly sought relief: multiple motions to correct erroneous sentence (the present filing was his fifth, filed July 22, 2016).
- The trial court denied the 2016 motion without a hearing; Wilson appealed the denial.
- The motion claimed various errors including that (a) 1994 amendments to Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2 should apply retroactively, (b) consecutive/enhanced sentences were improper or barred, (c) Blakely should apply retroactively, (d) lack of evidentiary support for consecutive sentences and denial of a fingerprint expert, and (e) an earlier State sentence offer should control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wilson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying the motion to correct erroneous sentence | The sentencing judgment is facially erroneous and subject to correction (claims include improper consecutive/enhanced sentences and retroactive application of statutory amendments/Blakely). | The motion does not show error on the face of the formal sentencing judgment and raises matters outside a motion to correct erroneous sentence. | Denied — no abuse of discretion; motion inappropriate because errors are not facially apparent. |
| 2. Whether 1994 amendments to Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2 or subsequent case law should be applied retroactively | Wilson seeks retroactive benefit of the 1994 statutory amendments and later cases invalidating certain enhanced/consecutive sentences. | Wilson’s case was final before the amendments/cases; retroactivity not available and issue was previously litigated. | Denied — retroactivity unavailable; res judicata bars relitigation. |
| 3. Whether Blakely v. Washington applies retroactively to invalidate sentence enhancements | Blakely requires jury findings for enhancements and should apply to reduce or vacate sentence. | Wilson’s direct appeal was final before Blakely; Blakely does not apply retroactively to his case and this was previously decided. | Denied — Blakely not retroactive here; issue precluded by earlier appeal. |
| 4. Whether failure to include the formal sentencing judgment and motion in the record waives review | Wilson contends the judgment is erroneous; asks court to consider claims. | Appellant failed to provide the formal judgment and motion to the appellate record, so review is waived. | Held — waiver; appellant bears burden of complete record and issues are deemed waived without it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 978 N.E.2d 470 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (standard: motion to correct erroneous sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion and limited to facial errors)
- Woodcox v. State, 30 N.E.3d 748 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (motion to correct erroneous sentence limited to errors apparent on the face of the judgment; claims requiring consideration of trial proceedings are improper)
- Wilson v. State, 611 N.E.2d 160 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (on direct appeal, court upheld sentence as not manifestly unreasonable)
- Eiler v. State, 938 N.E.2d 1235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (appellant must present a record complete with respect to issues raised on appeal)
- Lee v. State, 694 N.E.2d 719 (Ind. 1998) (issues are waived when appellant fails to present an adequate record)
- Love v. State, 22 N.E.3d 663 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (res judicata bars relitigation of claims decided by final judgment)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (holding that certain sentencing facts must be found by a jury)