The opinion
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED
court except for the purpose of establishing Nov 02 2018, 9:20 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral
CLERK
estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
LeRon Everett Easley-El Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Pendleton, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Angela N. Sanchez
Assistant Section Chief, Criminal
Appeals
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
LeRon E. Easley-El, November 2, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-691
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Amy Barbar,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G02-9303-CF-33518
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-691 | November 2, 2018 Page 1 of 3
Case Summary
[1] In 1993, LeRon E. Easley-El was convicted of attempted murder, rape, criminal
deviate conduct, criminal confinement, robbery, and two counts of burglary.
He was sentenced to an aggregate ninety-year term. In the years since his
convictions, Easley-El has filed numerous unsuccessful motions to modify his
sentence. In the instant appeal, he challenges the denial of his most recent
motion to modify his sentence. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In August of 1993, Easley-El was sentenced to an aggregate ninety-year term
after he pled guilty to attempted murder, rape, criminal deviate conduct,
criminal confinement, robbery, and two counts of burglary. In 2005, Easley-
El’s sentence was affirmed following a belated appeal. Between the years 1993
and 2015, Easley-El filed eleven motions for modification of his sentence, all of
which were denied. On March 8, 2018, Easley-El filed his twelfth motion for
sentence modification. The trial court denied Easley-El’s motion on March 12,
2018, stating that the “Petitioner is serving a sentence for a violent offense;
Petitioner has failed to show that the State of Indiana approves a modification
herein. Ct. DENIES modification.” Appellant’s App. p. 41.
Discussion and Decision
[3] Easley-El contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his
motion for a sentence modification. “We review a trial court’s decision as to a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-691 | November 2, 2018 Page 2 of 3
motion to modify only for an abuse of discretion.” Carr v. State, 33 N.E.3d 358,
358 (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. at 359 (internal quotation omitted).
[4] Easley-El’s crimes qualify him as a violent criminal. In seeking relief, he must
therefore comply with the rules relating to sentence modification for violent
criminals. Indiana Code section 35-38-1-17(k) provides that after the elapse of
365 days from the date of sentencing, a convicted person who is a violent
criminal may not file a motion for sentence modification without the consent of
the prosecuting attorney. It is undisputed that the sentence at issue was
imposed in 1993. Easley-El’s motion for modification of his sentence was filed
on March 8, 2018, far more than 365 days from the date of sentencing. As
such, his motion required consent from the prosecuting attorney, which he did
not have. The trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in denying
Easley-El’s petition.
[5] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-691 | November 2, 2018 Page 3 of 3