Norman Trent v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. Oct 26 2011, 9:42 am CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court APPELLANT PRO-SE: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: NORMAN TRENT Plainfield, Indiana GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana GEORGE P. SHERMAN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA NORMAN TRENT, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 54A01-1104-CR-172 APPEAL FROM THE MONTGOMERYCIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Harry A. Siamas, Judge Cause No. 54C01-0202-FA-22 October 26, 2011 MEMORANDUM DECISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION BAKER, Judge Appellant-defendant Norman Trent appeals the trial court s denial of his motion to correct abstract of judgment. Trent essentially argues that the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) has miscalculated his release date and is holding him in violation of the law. Concluding that the trial court properly denied Trent s motion, we affirm. FACTS1 On October 21, 2002, Trent pleaded guilty to class B felony attempted dealing in methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced Trent to twelve years in the DOC with eight years executed and four years suspended to probation with all to run consecutively to a sentence from a prior conviction. On June 16, 2006, Trent was released to a community transition program. The State filed a petition to revoke Trent s probation, which the trial court granted on September 25, 2007. The trial court ordered Trent to serve the remainder of his twelveyear sentence in the DOC and issued a new abstract of judgment. On September 18, 2008, the trial court re-released Trent to a community transition program. On March 14, 2011, Trent, by counsel, filed a motion to amend abstract of judgment in an effort to compel the DOC to recalculate Trent s release date. In its order denying the motion, the trial court recounted the series of repetitive motions that Trent had previously filed all raising the same issues as the current motion to amend abstract of 1 We note that on August 18, 2011, Trent filed a motion for expedited consideration of appeal. Also, on September 14, 2011, he filed a Trial Rule 12 (E) motion for leave for a more definite statement. We deny both requests. 2 judgment. As a result of the repetitive motions, the trial court denied the present motion pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 53.4 and Criminal Rule 21. Trent now appeals. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Trent contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to correct abstract of judgment. Specifically, he argues that the trial court should have granted his motion because the DOC has incorrectly calculated his release date as a result of his abstract of judgment and is now holding him in violation of the law. We initially observe that Trent s motion to amend the abstract of judgment is tantamount to a motion to correct erroneous sentence. See Brattain v. State, 777 N.E.2d 774, 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (holding that a request for credit for time served was, in essence, a motion to correct erroneous sentence). A prisoner who files a motion to correct an erroneous sentence for any reason must first demonstrate that he has exhausted the remedies available through the offender grievance process. Neff v. State, 888 N.E.2d 1249, 1252 (Ind. 2008). Trent failed to provide this Court with any evidence that he exhausted his administrative remedies other than a bald, self-serving statement in his original motion in which he claims to have done so. Thus, Trent has failed to demonstrate that he exhausted the remedies as required by Neff. Id. As a result, we conclude that the trial court properly denied Trent s motion. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. KIRSCH, J., and BROWN, J., concur. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
