Court Opinion

ID: 9517734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:30:10.451409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:25.213239
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Although I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the evidence supports a conviction, I must dissent from affirmance of both convictions.
The majority incorrectly states that Kelly v. State (1988) 2d Dist.Ind.App., 527 N.E.2d 1148, and Spaulding v. State, (1989) 1st Dist.Ind.App., 533 N.E.2d 597, merely “suggest” that double jeopardy considerations preclude sentences upon both convictions. The principle is a holding of the Kelly decision which was followed in Spaulding.
Johnson v. State (1983) Ind., 455 N.E.2d 932, is misread by the majority here. The Johnson case did not involve a defendant who attempted to kill two people “at the same time.” Majority Opinion at 519. As our Supreme Court recently noted in Henderson v. State (1989) Ind., 534 N.E.2d 1105: “[Johnson] was convicted of two counts of attempted murder after she struck one victim with her car, then pursued and struck another victim" At 1106 (emphasis supplied).
For the reasons set forth in Kelly v. State, supra, I would set aside the conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury.