Court Opinion

ID: 9520397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:39:02.105097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:10.166598
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
In his first sentence appellant received an augmented sentence of fifty (50) years for attempted murder, and presumptive sentences of thirty (80) years each for the three felonies: burglary, attempted rape, and attempted robbery. The fifty (50) year sentence for attempted murder was to run consecutively to the sentences for the other three felonies. The sentences for the other three were to run concurrently with each other. The sentencing court thus used its determination of aggravating cireumstanc-es for two distinct purposes, namely, first, to enhance the attempted murder sentence, and, second, to order the attempted murder sentence to be served consecutively. The handling of aggravating circumstances was completely legitimate and unaffected by this court's determination on appeal that it had been illegal for the sentencing court to consider the burglary, attempted rape and attempted robbery as class A felonies.
In order to erase the illegal aspect of the sentencing, we ordered the following as quoted also in the majority opinion:
"In light of our decision in Issue IX we remand with instructions to vacate appellant's convictions and sentences for class A burglary, class A attempted rape, and class A attempted robbery; and to enter convictions and appropriate sentences for class B burglary, class B attempted rape, and class C attempted robbery, in their stead. In all other respects the convictions and sentences are affirmed."
Flowers v. State (1985), Ind., 481 N.E.2d 100, 107. Two aspects of the sentences which were "affirmed" were the decisions to run the attempted murder sentence consecutive to the cluster of three and to have the sentences for the felonies within the cluster to run concurrently with one another. When, therefore, the trial judge altered his sentencing order so as to require that the sentences for the cluster of three run consecutive to one another, he was inconsistent with our affirmance of that *1100aspect of his prior sentence, and acted in a manner inconsistent with our remand order.
I would affirm the rulings of the court, but require that the new sentencing order be modified in a single respect, namely by requiring that the sentences for burglary, attempted rape, and attempted robbery be served concurrently.
DICKSON, J., concurs.