Mark R. Fish v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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. APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: MARK R. FISH Pendleton, Indiana GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana KARL M. SCHARNBERG Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana FILED Apr 20 2010, 9:40 am IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA MARK R. FISH, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 71A03-0910-CR-460 APPEAL FROM THE ST. JOSEPH SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Jane Woodward Miller, Judge Cause No. 71D04-9507-CF-337 April 20, 2010 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION KIRSCH, Judge CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court Mark R. Fish appeals the denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence, raising the following issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion. We affirm. Fish was arrested for murder on July 31, 1995 and convicted after a jury trial. He was sentenced to fifty-five years executed on September 3, 1996 and given 402 days jail time credit. On April 14, 2009, Fish filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence, arguing that he was not given credit time earned from his assignment to Credit Class I. This motion was denied by the trial court. Fish now appeals. In Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 792 (Ind. 2004), our Supreme Court held: Sentencing judgments that report only days spent in pre-sentence confinement and fail to expressly designate credit time earned shall be understood by courts and by the Department of Correction automatically to award the number of credit time days equal to the number of pre-sentence confinement days . . . . Because the omission of designation of the statutory credit time entitlement is thus corrected by this presumption, such omission may not be raised as an erroneous sentence. Id. The trial court properly followed the direction of our Supreme Court in Robinson and did not abuse its discretion in denying Fish s motion to correct erroneous sentence.1 Affirmed. FRIEDLANDER, J., and ROBB, J., concur. 1 To the extent that Fish is arguing that the Department of Correction has not applied the 402 days of good time credit to his sentence, a motion to correct erroneous sentence is not the proper vehicle for such a claim as it requires consideration of matters outside the face of the judgment. If a claim requires consideration of proceedings before, during, or after trial, such claims may not be presented by way of a motion to correct erroneous sentence. Fulkrod v. State, 855 N.E.2d 1064, 1066 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). A motion to correct erroneous sentence is a procedural mechanism which may be used to challenge a sentence that is erroneous on its face. Id. 2

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.