Opinion ID: 2051240
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: ISSUES VI, VII and VIII

Text: We do not fully address these assignments, as they are not predicated upon rulings challenged at trial or by the motion to correct errors. Neither does it appear that the matters complained of rise to the height of fundamental error, under Phillips v. State, 268 Ind. at 561, 376 N.E.2d at 1146 and Nelson v. State, 409 N.E.2d at 638. Permitting a witness to testify, notwithstanding a violation of a previous separation order, lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Our substantial review of the record necessitated by the other assigned issues is in no way indicative of a trial conducted with undue dispatch. The presumptive sentence for Defendant's crime is ten years. Not only did the trial court impose this sentence, it suspended seven years thereof, conditioned upon restitution being made. It is ludicrous to claim that the court would have assessed yet a lesser penalty, but for its consideration of the Defendant's commission of the crime as an impermissible aggravating factor. The court was merely commenting upon the seriousness of the Defendant's crime. We find no reversible error. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. GIVAN, C.J., and HUNTER, DeBRULER and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur.