Court Opinion

ID: 9861969
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 00:56:14.413914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:29:52.598645
License: Public Domain

GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case in the decision to remand to the trial court for re-sentencing to reflect conviction of just one count of forgery.
To commit forgery, one must make or utter a written instrument with the intent to defraud so that it purports to have been made by another person at another time with different provisions or by authority of one who did not give authority. Ind.Code § 85-48-5-2.
In appellant's case, the State established the facts which proved that appellant had uttered each of seven forged checks. When separate and distinct offenses occur, even when they are similar acts done at the same time, they are charged individually as separate and distinct criminal conduct. Brown v. State (1984), Ind., 459 N.E.2d 376.
In the case at bar, appellant acted with more than a single intent and design when he uttered the seven checks. He was properly convicted of seven counts of forgery. See Graham v. State (1982), Ind., 435 N.E.2d 560; McMahan v. State (1978), 269 Ind. 566, 382 N.E.2d 154.
I would hold that the trial court was correct in sentencing appellant for seven separate forgeries.
PIVARNIK, J., concurs.