Court Opinion

ID: 9715340
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:00:49.512594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:33.715417
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
I fully concur with the majority as to Parts I, II, III and IV(B). As to Part IV(A), I agree that the Class D felony conviction must be set aside because:
"Kelly committed only one offense of operating a vehicle while intoxicated although with multiple results." Opinion at 1155.
I do not, however, agree that multiple convictions may always be properly obtained for offenses, the definition of which includes the result.
The majority correctly states that multiple offenses occur if "conduct has been directed at each particular victim." At 1155. But as opined in my separate concurrence in Dupin v. State (1988) 4th Dist. Ind.App., 524 N.E.2d 329, if the culpable conduct has not been so directed, the fact of multiple vietims does not permit multiple convictions.