Court Opinion

ID: 9717479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:04:16.491334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:53.400787
License: Public Domain

KRAHULIK, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully join Justice Givan in dissenting from the majority opinion for the reasons specified in such dissent. Additionally, however, I must dissent because I cannot say, as a matter of law, that it was manifestly unreasonable for the trial court to add twenty (20) years to the defendant’s sentence in view of the defendant’s long history of criminal convictions. The trial court had before it, not only the pre-sen-tence report, but also its observations of the trial and of the defendant himself. The trial court, with the aid of these observations and information, chose to reduce the 30-year habitual offender enhancement by only ten years instead of by the twenty (20) years that the majority holds is required by the Indiana Constitution. I do not agree that Article I, Section 16, of the Indiana Constitution was violated by the trial court’s considered utilization of the habitual offender statute.
For these reasons, I would affirm appellant’s conviction in its entirety.
GIVAN, J., concurs.