Title: Robert Bowen v. State of Indiana

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT  
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 
Mark K. Leeman 
 
 
 
 
 
Gregory F. Zoeller 
Logansport, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney General of Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Michael Gene Worden 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Attorney General 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 08S02-1306-CR-423 
 
 
ROBERT BOWEN, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant (Defendant below), 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF INDIANA,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellee (Plaintiff below). 
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the Carroll Circuit Court 
No. 08C01-1007-FB-8 
The Honorable Donald E. Currie, Judge 
  
_________________________________ 
 
On Petition For Rehearing  
_________________________________ 
 
October 31, 2013 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
Bowen’s sentencing order did not identify the reasons for the consecutive sentences that 
were imposed.  We rejected the argument in Bowen’s transfer petition that concurrent sentences 
were required, but we sustained his argument that a new sentencing order was and we remanded 
Oct 31 2013, 10:16 am
2 
 
the case with instructions for preparation of a new sentencing order “without a hearing.”  Bowen 
v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1134 (Ind. 2013).   Bowen’s rehearing petition notes that the judge who 
originally sentenced him is no longer on the bench and he argues that the current judge cannot 
clarify the original sentencing decision.  Bowen again requests that the case be remanded with 
instructions for imposition of concurrent sentences.  We again reject that request, but expand our 
remand instructions as follows:  
On remand for a new sentencing order that responds to concerns raised by the 
Supreme Court, the trial court may discharge this responsibility by (1) issuing a 
new sentencing order without taking any further action, (2) ordering additional 
briefing on the sentencing issue and then issuing a new order without holding a 
new sentencing hearing, or (3) ordering a new sentencing hearing at which 
additional factual submissions are either allowed or disallowed and then issuing 
a new order based on the presentations of the parties.  
 
Taylor v. State, 840 N.E.2d 324 (Ind. 2006).   
 
Accordingly, we grant rehearing for the limited purpose of modifying the remand 
instructions, and otherwise deny the rehearing petition.  
 
All Justices concur.