Court Opinion

ID: 9732813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:36:46.156255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:34.285501
License: Public Domain

GIVAN, Chief Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with this well-drafted majority opinion with the exception of the last portion of the opinion dealing with the sentencing.
I have reviewed our decision in Groff v. State (1986), Ind., 488 N.E.2d 711. Al though I originally concurred in that opinion, I now feel it is in error. The statute quoted in the opinion clearly states "(1) [alfter having been arrested for another crime; and (2) [blefore the date he is discharged...." Ind.Code § 35-50-1-2(b). I think it is clear that Groff was in error in saying that in order for the sentences to be consecutive the defendant had to be not only arrested for another crime but also sentenced on his prior crime. To me the clear language of the statute indicates that the consecutive sentence is to be used at any time a crime is committed after the defendant has been arrested for another crime.
The paragraph of the statute referring to discharge from probation and parole or the term of imprisonment simply sets the limitation of the time extent in which the consecutive sentence will be imposed. I now believe Groff should be overruled and the sentence in the instant case affirmed.