Oscar F. Lopez v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Oct 06 2017, 11:02 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court 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 Oscar F. Lopez Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Pendleton, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Henry A. Flores, Jr. Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Oscar F. Lopez, October 6, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A05-1704-CR-744 v. Appeal from the Elkhart Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Michael A. Appellee-Plaintiff. Christofeno, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 20C01-0906-FA-15 Mathias, Judge. [1] Oscar Lopez (“Lopez”) appeals pro se the Elkhart Circuit Court’s denial of his motion to modify his sentence. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A05-1704-CR-744 | October 6, 2017 Page 1 of 5 [2] We affirm. Facts and Procedural History [3] On January 8, 2010, Lopez pleaded guilty to two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine. For each count, the trial court ordered Lopez to serve concurrent terms of thirty-five years with ten years suspended to probation. [4] Prior to the motion at issue in this appeal, Lopez unsuccessfully filed motions to modify his sentence and/or placement in October 2012, January 2014, March 2014, February 2015, March 2015, December 2015, and January 2016. On February 3, 2017, Lopez filed his eighth motion to modify his sentence. [5] In his motion, Lopez asked the trial court to allow him to serve the remainder of his sentence on probation.1 Lopez listed the programs he had participated in during his incarceration and explained that he “made substantial efforts to rehabilitate [himself] during the term of [his] incarceration.” Appellant’s App. p. 13. Lopez, who is not a United States citizen, also argued that it would “be in the best interest of this court and the State of Indiana to grant [his] request for modification of placement” because he has “an immigration hold.” Id. 1 Lopez informed the trial court that the remaining executed portion of his sentence was three years and four months. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A05-1704-CR-744 | October 6, 2017 Page 2 of 5 [6] Upon receiving the motion, the trial court ordered a progress report from the Department of Correction. The trial court reviewed the report and denied Lopez’s motion to modify his sentence and/or placement. Lopez now appeals. Discussion and Decision [7] We review a trial court’s decision to deny a motion to modify a sentence only for an abuse of discretion. Carr v. State, 33 N.E.3d 358, 358–59 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs only when the trial court’s decision is “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court.” Id. at 359. Lopez argues that the trial court abused its ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals