Pyle, J.
In this interlocutory appeal, Anthony Wampler (“Wampler”) appeals the trial court’s order granting the State’s motion to resentence Wampler for a Class B felony burglary conviction. The State filed the motion after the parties had agreed that Wampler’s habitual offender enhancement and sentence should be vacated. Wampler specifically argues that the trial court does not have the authority to resentence him because the Indiana Supreme Court ordered a specific sentence for the burglary conviction upon remand of his direct appeal. However, we need not address Wampler’s argument because the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion to resentence Wampler for another reason. Wampler had already served his sentence for the burglary conviction and had been released from the Department of Correction (“the DOC”) before the trial court granted the State’s resentencing motion. A trial court does not have the authority to resentence a defendant who has served his sentence and been released from the DOC. In addition, it would be manifestly unfair for the trial court to call Wampler back into court and potentially resentence him to additional time for the burglary conviction when he had already served his sentence for that conviction and been released from the DOC. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order granting the State’s motion to resentence Wampler.
We reverse.
…
Wampler argues that the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion to resentence him because the Indiana Supreme Court had ordered a specific sixyear sentence for each burglary conviction upon remand of Wampler’s direct appeal. However, we need not address Wampler’s argument because the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion to resentence Wampler for another reason.
Specifically, our review of the record reveals when the trial court vacated Wampler’s habitual offender status in May 2020, the trial court also ordered the county clerk to issue an amended Abstract of Judgment. Trial courts use the Abstract of Judgment to convey the final judgment to the receiving authority. Robinson v. State, 199 N.E.2d 1202, 1204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). Based upon this amended Abstract of Judgment, the DOC, the receiving authority in this case, calculated that, without the habitual offender enhancement, Wampler would have completed his sentence for the burglary convictions on July 13, 2017. Accordingly, the DOC immediately released Wampler.
Because Wampler has served his sentence for the burglary convictions and has been released from the Department of Correction, the trial court had no authority to resentence him. Trial courts are limited to imposing sentences that are authorized by statute. Wilson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 759, 762 (Ind. 2014). There is no statute authorizing trial courts to resentence a defendant who has served his sentence and been released from the DOC.
In addition, it would be manifestly unfair for the trial court to call Wampler back into court and potentially resentence him to additional time for the burglary conviction when he had already served his sentence for that conviction and been released from the DOC. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order granting the State’s motion to resentence Wampler.
Reversed.
Najam, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.