Court Opinion

ID: 9735593
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:25:05.503799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:00.228978
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON REHEARING
(May 2, 1997)
BOEHM, Justice.
In his petition for rehearing, Jarman Spur-lock alleges that his sixty-nine year sentence should be reduced to fifty-one years based upon the calculation of the habitual offender portion of his sentence. Pursuant to Indiana Code § 35-50-2-8(e), the sentence for a habitual offender shall be “an additional fixed term that is not less than the presumptive sentence nor more than three (3) times the presumptive sentence for the underlying offense” up to a maximum of thirty years. Spurlock asserts that the habitual offender *318enhancement should be twelve years as opposed to thirty years, because the effect of this Court’s holding is to reduce the most serious of his convictions to a Class C felony and the presumptive sentence for one Class C felony is four years. Ind.Code § 35-50-2-6 (1993). In Starks v. State, 523 N.E.2d 735 (Ind.1988), we noted that subsection (e) of the habitual offender statute does not clearly exclude the possibility of enhancing each underlying offense up to a total of thirty years. However, consistent with the holding in that case, Spurlock’s enhancement should be limited to one conviction. This produces a habitual offender enhancement of twelve years and a total sentence of fifty-one (51) years. This cause is remanded to the trial court to enter sentence accordingly.
SHEPARD, C.J., DICKSON and SELBY, JJ., concur.
SULLIVAN, J., concurs with separate opinion.