Title: Robert Bowen v. State of Indiana
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 08S02-1306-CR-423
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: June 14, 2013

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 To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 08A02-1206-CR-504 
_________________________________ 
 
June 14, 2013 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
After a jury trial, Robert Bowen was convicted of several offenses (and sentenced to 
advisory terms) as follows:  unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (10 
years), dealing in a controlled substance (4 years), possession of a controlled substance (1.5 
Jun 14 2013, 9:30 am
2 
 
years) and possession of marijuana (1 year).  The trial court ordered the sentences to be served 
concurrently, except the 4-year sentence was ordered to be served consecutively, for a total 
executed term of 14 years.  
 
The trial court did not state its reasons for imposing this sentence, either in writing or 
from the bench, and did not identify any reason for consecutive sentences.  Noting that the pre-
sentence investigation report disclosed an extensive criminal history and that the trial court had 
considered the report, the Court of Appeals inferred that Bowen’s criminal history was the 
reason the trial court had imposed consecutive sentences.  See Bowen v. State, No. 08A02-1206-
CR-504 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2013) (mem. dec.).   
 
Precedent requires that a trial court “include a reasonably detailed recitation of the trial 
court's reasons for imposing a particular sentence,” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490-91 
(Ind. 2007), including the reasons for imposing consecutive sentences, see, e.g., Ortiz v. State, 
766 N.E.2d 370, 377 (Ind. 2002); Smith v. State, 474 N.E.2d 71, 73 (Ind. 1985); see also Ind. 
Code § 35-50-1-2.  We choose to remand to the trial court for clarification of its sentencing 
decision and preparation of a new sentencing order.  See Windhorst v. State, 868 N.E.2d 504, 
507 (Ind. 2007), reh’g denied.     
 
Accordingly, we grant transfer and remand this case to the trial court with instructions to 
issue an amended sentencing order that complies with the law, without a hearing.  See Sanchez v. 
State, 938 N.E.2d 720, 723 (Ind. 2010).  The decision of the Court of Appeals is summarily 
affirmed in all other respects.   See App. R. 58(A).  Subject only to the rules governing rehearing, 
this opinion concludes this appeal of the convictions and the original sentencing order. 
 
Dickson, C.J., and Rucker, David, Massa, and Rush, JJ., concur.