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

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM DECISION 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. FILED Dec 27 2018, 10:22 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Cara Schaefer Wieneke Wieneke Law Office, LLC Brooklyn, Indiana Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of 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. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. Appeal from the Vigo Superior Court The Honorable Sarah K. Mullican, 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

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.