ILNews

Man had no constitutional right to counsel

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a man’s claims in support of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding his motion to correct sentence wasn’t a motion pursuant to Indiana Code, but was a collateral attack on his sentence.

U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker in the Indianapolis Division of the Southern District of Indiana dismissed Joshua Resendez’s petition. She ruled the claim was not cognizable in habeas corpus because Resendez was asserting his right to counsel in making a collateral challenge to his conviction in state courts.

Resendez pleaded guilty to robbery in 2002, and while in prison, pleaded guilty to forgery and receiving stolen property in another case. His sentences were ordered to run consecutively; he did not appeal his conviction or sentence in either case. When released, he began serving probation while serving parole. He violated terms of his probation and eventually was ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence in prison.

After his pro se motions in state court to correct sentence were denied, as well as his request for assistance of counsel, he sought relief in federal court.

Judge John Tinder noted at first blush, Resendez’s case appears to present the question whether a I.C. 35-38-1-15 is properly classified as a direct or collateral proceeding for federal habeas purposes, but the 7th Circuit didn’t need to answer that question because it found his claims may not be presented via a motion under that statute.

A motion to correct sentence pursuant to I.C. 35-38-1-15 may only be filed to address a sentence that is “erroneous on its face,” Tinder wrote. Other sentencing errors have to be addressed via direct appeal or post-conviction relief, and the Indiana Supreme Court held that “claims that require consideration of the proceedings before, during or after trial may not be presented by way of a motion to correct sentence.”

The alleged sentencing error in this case is not clear from the face of the judgment, so his sentencing challenge may only be raised on direct appeal or in post-conviction proceedings, the court held.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT