Court Opinion

ID: 9711342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:29:42.6486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:03.958718
License: Public Domain

BAILEY, Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in result in part
I concur fully with the majority opinion as to Issues 1 and 2. However, I concur with the majority in result only as to Issue 3.
For the reasons set forth in Russell v. State, 711 N.E.2d 545 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied, I do not agree with the majority that the Indiana Supreme Court’s decisions in Games v. State, 684 N.E.2d 466 (Ind.1997), modified on other grounds, 690 N.E.2d 211 (Ind.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 98, 142 L.Ed.2d 78 (1998), and Grinstead v. State, 684 N.E.2d 482 (Ind.1997) caused double jeopardy analysis under the Indiana Constitution to be one in the same with that of double jeopardy analysis under the United States Constitution.
Nevertheless, applying the distinct state double jeopardy test as articulated in Russell, I find that Burk’s convictions for re*45sisting law enforcement with a deadly weapon and for carrying a handgun without a license did not subject him to double jeopardy under Article I, Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution.