Appeal from the Lake Superior Court. The Honorable Michael J. Lambert, Judge Pro Tempore. 45G02-9909-CF-160.
APPELLANT Pro se, Floyd Carr, Pendleton, Indiana.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, George P. Sherman, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana.
May, Judge. Robb, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
[¶1] Floyd Carr appeals the court's denial of his motion to modify sentence. The court did not abuse its discretion as it had no authority to modify Carr's sentence without approval of the prosecutor.
[¶2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶3] On July 21, 2000, the court imposed a fifty-five-year sentence for Carr's conviction of murder, ordering him to serve forty-five years incarcerated and ten years on probation. On July 10, 2014, Carr moved for the court to modify his sentence, specifically to reduce or suspend his remaining sentence. That same day, the court denied Carr's motion in an order that provided in pertinent part, that the court " denies said motions since more than three hundred sixty-five (365) days have elapsed since you began serving your sentence, and your sentence was imposed on July 21, 2000, the Court may not modify your sentence unless you have the approval of the Prosecuting Attorney." (Appellant's App. at 1.)
Discussion and Decision
[¶4] Carr asserts the trial court erred by denying his petition for sentence modification filed under Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-17 (2014). We review a trial court's decision as to a motion to modify only for an abuse of discretion. Hobbs v. State,
26 N.E.3d 983, 985 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015). An abuse of discretion has occurred when the court's decision was " clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court." Id.
[¶5] Carr claims the court abused its discretion by insisting approval of the prosecutor was required for sentence modification. In support thereof, Carr cites the version of the statute controlling sentence ...