Opinion ID: 852707
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did Consecutive Sentences Violate Blakely?

Text: In Smylie we noted that because there is no language in Blakely or in Indiana's sentencing statutes that requires or even favors concurrent sentencing, Indiana's discretionary scheme of imposing consecutive sentences was not invalidated by Blakely. 823 N.E.2d at 686. Because the determination of whether to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences is entirely at the discretion of the trial judge (and thus not a judicial impingement upon the traditional role of the jury), we concluded that there is no constitutional problem with consecutive sentencing so long as the trial court does not exceed the combined statutory maximums. Id. See also Blakely, 542 U.S. at 308-10, 124 S.Ct. 2531. In Bryant's case, the only possible question regarding the propriety of the consecutive sentences is whether or not there were sufficient aggravating circumstances to support the decision to run the sentences consecutively. As we stated above, the trial judge found two aggravators at the sentencing phase: Bryant's prior criminal history, and the conclusion that Bryant had lain in wait for D.S. While lying in wait cannot support an enhanced sentence in the absence of a jury finding, it can be used to support the decision to impose consecutive sentences inasmuch as findings to support consecutive sentences can be made by the court. Smylie, 823 N.E.2d at 686. The trial court's finding that the crimes were committed using this technique was not challenged on appeal. In addition, although Bryant's criminal history was insufficiently laid out at trial to sustain the sentencing enhancement, there was no question that he has a criminal record. We conclude that the simple fact of a criminal history, when taken into consideration with a factor that demonstrates some increased degree of culpability such as lying in wait, is sufficient to support the decision to impose consecutive sentences. It was within the trial judge's discretion to impose consecutive sentences, and given the evidence presented at Bryant's trial, we find there was no abuse of that discretion.