from the Vanderburgh Circuit Court. The Honorable Kelli E.
Fink, Magistrate. Trial Court Cause No. 82C01-1011-FB-1353.
PRO SE: Shawn Jaco, Pendleton, Indiana.
FOR APPELLEE: Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of
Indiana; Jesse R. Drum, Deputy Attorney General,
Judge. Kirsch, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Shawn Jaco, pro se, appeals from the denial of his
motion for modification of sentence. Jaco raises one issue,
which we revise and restate as whether the trial court erred
in denying his motion. We affirm.
and Procedural History
In November 2011, a jury found Jaco guilty of aggravated
battery as a class B felony and criminal confinement as a
class C felony. On December 14, 2011,
the trial court sentenced Jaco to fourteen years for his
conviction for aggravated battery and five years for his
conviction for criminal confinement, to be served
concurrently with each other. We affirmed Jaco's
convictions on appeal. Jaco v. State, 980 N.E.2d 451
(Ind.Ct.App. 2012), trans. denied.
On February 17, 2015, Jaco filed a motion for modification of
sentence arguing that he has been fully rehabilitated. On May
28, 2015, the court held a hearing at which the State
objected, and the court denied Jaco's motion.
The issue is whether the trial court erred in denying
Jaco's motion for modification of sentence. We review a
trial court's denial of a petition to modify a sentence
only for abuse of discretion. Swallows v. State, 31
N.E.3d 544, 545-546 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015) (citing Hobbs v.
State, 26 N.E.3d 983, 985 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015) (citing
Gardiner v. State, 928 N.E.2d 194, 196 (Ind.
2010))), trans. denied. If the ruling rests on a
question of law, however, we review the matter de novo.
Id. (citing State v. Holloway, 980 N.E.2d 331,
334 (Ind.Ct.App. 2012)). Matters of statutory interpretation
present pure questions of law. Id. (citing State
v. Brunner, 947 N.E.2d 411, 416 (Ind. 2011) (citing
Gardiner, 928 N.E.2d at 196), reh'g
Ind. Code § 35-38-1-17 addresses the reduction or
suspension of a sentence. Prior to July 1, 2014, the statute
provided in part:
If more than three hundred sixty-five (365) days have elapsed
since the convicted person began serving the sentence and
after a hearing at which the convicted person is present, the
court may reduce or suspend the sentence, subjec ...