Opinion ID: 2087332
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Misunderstanding of Potential Sentences

Text: The defendant contends that the trial court was mistaken in its understanding that because the State dismissed the burglary count, the trial court was absolved of a consideration of mercy to be extended to the defendant. In support of his assertion, the defendant cites the following statement issued by the trial court during the sentencing hearing: And by dismissing Count Two [burglary], the State has saved you a potential fifty additional years in prison. And I think the State of Indiana has been as merciful as it can be. Record at 296. The defendant argues that because Count I alternatively charged felony murder and intentional or knowing murder, if he had proceeded to trial and been convicted of Count I on either theory, he could not have been sentenced to 50 years for the underlying burglary felony because the underlying felony would have merged with the felony murder at sentencing. The defendant thus contends that the trial court erred in concluding that he was saved a potential 50-year sentence, a conclusion that improperly influenced the trial court to impose the 20-year sentence enhancement. While we agree with the defendant that the trial court's statement of the State's having saved the defendant a 50-year sentence is inaccurate, we decline to infer that it was a factor in the trial court's enhancement of the presumptive sentence since it is not among the aggravating circumstances articulated in the trial court's sentencing order.