Court Opinion

ID: 9721307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:55:49.52597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:24.614676
License: Public Domain

*645GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I cannot agree with the majority's decision to remand this case to the trial court for new sentencing. The majority concedes that the trial court gave ample reasons including prior criminal convictions of appellant as an adult to support the sentences rendered.
In Sullivan v. State (1989), Ind., 540 N.E.2d 1242, we faced a similar situation. There we found that the trial court had used other proper facts and cireumstances that supported the imposed sentences so that the inclusion of the juvenile factors would have been harmless if it were error. I would use the same reasoning in the case at bar.
It is obvious that upon remand the trial court simply will render the same decision without commenting upon appellant's prior juvenile record. I cannot justify the imposition upon the trial court for such an exercise.
PIVARNIK, J., concurs.