Reuben Nathaniel Wright v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 27 2018, 10:22 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Brooklyn, Indiana
Chandra K. Hein
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Reuben Nathaniel Wright, December 27, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-1485
v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Sarah K. Mullican,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
84D03-1703-F3-859
Sharpnack, Senior Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1485 | December 27, 2018 Page 1 of 4
Statement of the Case
[1] Reuben Nathaniel Wright appeals the sentence the trial court imposed after
Wright pleaded guilty but mentally ill to two counts of attempted aggravated
1
battery, both Level 3 felonies. He further admitted to being an habitual
2
offender. We reverse and remand with instructions.
Issue
[2] Wright raises one issue, which we restate as: whether there is an error in the
abstract of judgment that requires correction.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] The State charged Wright with two counts of attempted aggravated battery and
six other felonies, and with being an habitual offender, following an encounter
with police officers and fire fighters. Wright and the State negotiated a plea
agreement, pursuant to which Wright agreed to plead guilty but mentally ill to
two counts of attempted aggravated battery and to being an habitual offender.
The State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges. The parties further agreed
to cap Wright’s sentence at twenty years.
[4] The trial court accepted the plea agreement. At the end of the sentencing
hearing, the court told the parties that Wright would serve nine years on each
1
Ind. Code §§ 35-42-2-1.5 (2014), 35-41-5-1 (2014).
2
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (2017).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1485 | December 27, 2018 Page 2 of 4
Level 3 felony conviction, to be served concurrently, with one of those
sentences enhanced by an additional eight years due to the habitual offender
enhancement.
[5] The court further issued a sentencing judgment stating that Wright was
sentenced to nine years on each Level 3 felony, to be served concurrently, and
“[t]he sentence imposed in Count 1 herein shall be enhanced by a period of
eight (8) years as a result of [Wright’s] admission that he is an Habitual
Offender.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2, p. 111. Finally, the court issued an
3
abstract of judgment, but the abstract showed that the sentencing enhancement
was applied to both Level 3 felony convictions. This appeal followed.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Wright argues the abstract of judgment must be corrected because it appears
that the habitual offender sentencing enhancement was erroneously applied to
both Level 3 felony convictions. The State acknowledges the apparent
scrivener’s error and agrees “remand is appropriate.” Appellee’s Br. p. 8.
[7] In general, sentencing decisions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Bethea
v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134, 1139 (Ind. 2013). We review questions of law de
novo. Russell v. State, 34 N.E.3d 1223, 1227 (Ind. 2015) (quotation omitted).
“It is the court’s judgment of conviction and not the abstract of judgment that is
3
The abstract of judgment is “a form issued by the Department of Correction and completed by trial judges
for the convenience of the Department.” Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 792 (Ind. 2004).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1485 | December 27, 2018 Page 3 of 4
the official trial court record and which thereafter is the controlling document.”
Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 794 (Ind. 2004).
[8] Based upon our review of the sentencing transcript, the sentencing judgment,
and the abstract of judgment, we conclude the oral pronouncement of sentence
and the sentencing judgment most accurately reflect the trial court’s stated
intention to attach the habitual offender sentencing enhancement to the
sentence for Count 1, the first count of attempted aggravated battery.
Furthermore, even if the trial court had intended to apply the enhancement to
both convictions, such an application would violate statutory requirements. See
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (the enhancement shall be attached “to the felony
conviction with the highest sentence”). The trial court must issue an amended
abstract of judgment that applies the habitual offender sentencing enhancement
to Count I only.
Conclusion
[9] For the reasons stated above, we reverse and remand to the trial court to issue
an amended abstract of judgment.
[10] Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Najam, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1485 | December 27, 2018 Page 4 of 4