NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

OPINION

KELLER, JUDGE.

The appellant, William Sabie, appeals a decision of the Jefferson County Circuit Court denying his motion to correct his sentence pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.01. On appeal, Sabie asserts that the circuit court mistakenly sentenced him to fourteen years' imprisonment as opposed to seven years. However, the plea agreement entered into by Sabie specifically provided that the recommended seven year sentence would increase to fourteen years in the event Sabie failed to appear. Sabie was released upon his own recognizance after the entry of his guilty plea and did not appear for sentencing. As a result, the circuit court did not err in sentencing him to fourteen years' imprisonment and we affirm.

On February 21, 2008, Sabie was indicted by a grand jury on one count of first-degree burglary and two counts of second-degree burglary. On June 26, 2008, the Commonwealth made an offer on a plea of guilty which amended the charge of first-degree burglary to a charge of second-degree burglary for a total of three counts of second-degree burglary. The offer, which was signed by Sabie and his counsel, set forth the following recommendation:

(Emphasis added). The circuit court accepted Sabie's guilty plea and determined it was voluntarily made. Further, the court noted in its order that the agreement contained a provision providing for an increased sentence in the event that Sabie failed to appear for sentencing. After accepting the plea, the circuit court ordered a pre-sentence investigation and released Sabie on his own recognizance pending sentencing. On August 19, 2008, Sabie failed to appear and the circuit court entered a bench warrant for his arrest. The warrant was executed and Sabie was arrested on April 11, 2010.

Sabie appeared before the circuit court on June 21, 2010 for final sentencing and, in accordance with the plea agreement, was sentenced to fourteen years' imprisonment. On February 10, 2011, Sabie filed a pro se motion to modify his sentence, but failed to indicate under which rule his motion was made. The motion was denied on April 13, 2011, for lack of jurisdiction. On May 20, 2011, Sabie filed another pro se motion for correction pursuant to CR 60.01. The circuit court summarily dismissed the motion on May 20, 2011.

CR 60.01 states that "[c]lerical mistakes in judgment, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders." A hearing is required for a post-conviction motion "if there is a material issue of fact that cannot be conclusively resolved, i.e., conclusively proved or disproved, by an examination of the record." Fraser v. Commonwealth, 59 S.W.3d 448, 452 (Ky. 2011).

On appeal, Sabie asserts that the increase from seven to fourteen years imprisonment was made in error because his plea agreement did not contain a "Hammer Clause." However, the Commonwealth's offer on the plea of guilty included a provision for an increased sentence and the offer was signed by Sabie and his counsel. The circuit court also noted the provision in its order and acceptance of the guilty plea. As a result, it is clear that Sabie's claims are refuted on the face of the record and his argument lacks merit. We affirm.

ALL CONCUR.