Opinion ID: 854108
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Arson Conviction

Text: Although there is no dispute that Bunch received a sixty-year sentence for murder, the status of the arson conviction and any sentence on that count is unclear from the record. In the sentencing order, the trial court stated that the arson conviction was merged into the murder conviction. However, the judgment of conviction shows an entry of conviction on each count. At the sentencing hearing, the court stated: These sentences are merged so it will be a single sentence of sixty years. Yet the abstract of judgment indicates concurrent sentences of sixty years for murder and fifty years for arson and the sentencing order includes fifty years for arson despite stating that the arson conviction was merged into the murder conviction. The trial court may have intended to vacate the arson conviction, but the record remains susceptible to the conclusion that Bunch stands convicted of arson and was given a concurrent fifty-year sentence. Bunch argues that it was error to impose any sentence for arson because the arson was the underlying felony supporting the felony murder conviction. Separate punishment for arson under these circumstances, she claims, is a second punishment for the same offense in violation of her federal double jeopardy rights. The State concedes this point. See, e.g., Kennedy v. State, 674 N.E.2d 966, 967 (Ind.1996) (citing inter alia Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 97 S.Ct. 2912, 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977)). Accordingly, this case will be remanded to the trial court with directions to vacate the arson conviction.