Opinion ID: 2078420
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sentencing on the Habitual Offender Charge

Text: Because the jury returned an affirmative verdict on the recidivist charge, the court stated it would sentence Bowens to forty years for robbery consecutive to the thirty years imposed for the habitual offender determination. Bowen argues that this sentencing order violates his rights against double jeopardy, inasmuch as he is in effect being sentenced twice for the robbery. It is the trial court's error in entering the sentence which lends plausibility to Bowens' argument. The court entered two sentences, one consecutive to the other. A proper sentencing order would not give rise to the idea that Bowens received two sentences. We have repeatedly held that recidivism is a status, not a separate crime, which requires enhancement of an underlying sentence instead of the imposition of a consecutive sentence. Hernandez v. State (1982), 439 N.E.2d 625. This cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter an order enhancing the robbery penalty by the addition of thirty years as the result of the recidivist finding. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. GIVAN, C.J., and DeBRULER, PIVARNIK and DICKSON, JJ., concur.