Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court. The Honorable Thomas A. Busch, Judge. Case No. 79D02-0308-FA-24.
Ivan Vazquez, APPELLANT, Pro se, Pendleton, Indiana.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana; Larry D. Allen, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Vaidik, Chief Judge. Kirsch, J., and Bradford, J., concur. Court.
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
[¶1] Ivan Vazquez began serving a forty-five-year sentence for felony drug convictions in 2005. Between 2010 and 2014, Vazquez filed three sentence-modification petitions as well as a motion to correct errors, all of which the trial court denied. Vazquez, proceeding pro se, now appeals. One of Vazquez's claims is that the recently amended sentence-modification statute--Indiana Code section 35-38-1-17--applies to him. Although this Court previously held that Section 35-38-1-17 had no retroactive application, the legislature recently amended the statute to expressly provide for retroactivity; thus, the amended statute does apply to Vazquez. This fact aside, the amended statute does not entitle Vazquez to any relief. We find no error, and we therefore affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] In 2004 Vazquez pled guilty to Class A felony dealing in cocaine and Class A felony conspiracy to commit dealing in cocaine. The trial court sentenced Vazquez to fifty years in the Indiana Department of Correction, with five years suspended to probation. We affirmed Vazquez's sentence on appeal. Vazquez v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1229 (Ind.Ct.App. 2005), trans. denied. Vazquez later sought post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied, and we affirmed. Vazquez v. State,
995 N.E.2d 17 (Ind.Ct.App. 2013), trans. denied.
[¶3] Vazquez filed his first sentence-modification petition in the trial court in November 2010. Appellant's App. p. 4 (CCS). The trial court denied Vazquez's petition. Id. Approximately four years later, in July 2014, Vazquez filed his second sentence-modification petition, which was also denied. Id. at 3. Just three months later, in October 2014, Vazquez filed a third petition to modify his sentence. Id. The trial court dismissed this petition as untimely, noting that Vazquez could refile on or after July 11, 2015. Id. at 18. Finally, Vazquez filed a motion to correct errors in November 2014, which the trial court denied. Id. at 2.
[¶4] Vazquez, proceeding pro se, now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[¶5] Vazquez makes a number of arguments on appeal, which we restate as: 1) the trial court was biased against him; 2) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on his sentence-modification petitions and motion to correct errors; and 3) the recently ...