Antrone L. Crockett v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED 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. Jan 31 2019, 8:21 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Antrone L. Crockett South Bend, Indiana Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General Jesse R. Drum Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Antrone L. Crockett, January 31, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-391 v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court The Honorable Elizabeth Hurley, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 71D08-0403-MR-007 Vaidik, Chief Judge. [1] In 2005, Antrone L. Crockett was convicted of Class A felony conspiracy to commit murder, and the trial court sentenced him to forty years. In 2018, Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-391 | January 31, 2019 Page 1 of 2 Crockett filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-38-1-15. Specifically, he argued that his “conviction is illegal on its Face” because the State did not properly charge him with conspiracy. Appellant’s App. p. 22 (emphasis added). The trial court denied Crockett’s motion without holding a hearing because he did not allege “that the sentence itself is erroneous on its face.” Id. at 49. We affirm. The purpose of Section 35-38-1-15 “is to provide prompt, direct access to an uncomplicated legal process for correcting the occasional erroneous or illegal sentence.” Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 785 (Ind. 2004) (emphasis added). Here, however, the basis of Crockett’s motion is that his conviction—not his sentence—is illegal. [2] Affirmed. Mathias, J., and Crone, J., concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-391 | January 31, 2019 Page 2 of 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.