Court Opinion

ID: 9714250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:33:44.945909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:24.579333
License: Public Domain

STATON, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in the result reached by the Majority. The question before this court is whether the trial court properly elevated the two separate crimes based on a single instance of bodily injury. On this issue our supreme court is clear; elevation of two crimes based on a single instance of bodily injury is a violation of double jeopardy. Flowers v. State (1985), Ind., 481 N.E.2d 100, 106; Bevill v. State (1985), Ind., 472 N.E.2d 1247, 1254.
However, the Majority's reference to extending the double jeopardy prohibition to the deadly weapon elevating factor is misplaced. See Op. at 380, n. 58 Odom was charged in separate informations with battery and attempted robbery. Both charges *382were elevated to class A felonies based on serious bodily injury to the victims. The deadly weapon elevator is not at issue. This is not a case in which we are extending the Bevill and Flowers rationale; instead, it is a case in which Bevill and Flowers directly apply. In this context, the Majority's discussion of the deadly weapon elevating factor merely muddies the water.
Because the elevation of Odom's crimes to class A felonies was based on a single act of bodily injury, his convictions violate double jeopardy. The Majority properly remanded this case to the post-conviction court for re-sentencing.

. Our supreme court has not determined whether separate offenses may be elevated based on the use of a single deadly weapon. The Majority cites Lyles v. State (1991), Ind.App., 576 N.E.2d 1344, 1352, reh. denied, trans. denied, for the proposition that our appellate courts are divided on this issue. A careful reading of Lyles reveals that it is based upon a misapplication of our supreme court's opinion in Bevill. Lyles, supra at 1352. Subsequent appellate court decisions have consistently refused to extend Flowers and Bevill to the deadly weapon elevator. See, eg., Brown v. State (1994), Ind.App., 633 N.E.2d 322, 324, trans. denied; Barker v. State (1993), Ind. App., 622 NE.2d 1336, 1338; Smith v. State (1993), Ind.App., 611 N.E.2d 144, 148, trans. denied; White v. State (1989), Ind.App., 544 N.E.2d 569, 570, trans. denied.