Court Opinion

ID: 9713412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:14:57.840778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:18.363719
License: Public Domain

CHEZEM, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority’s decision does not merely apply Kendrick, but extends it unnecessarily. The trial court did not simply impose Lamirand’s sentence consecutive to a pre-existing one, but modified his first sentence by reducing the term by eighteen months. By extending Kendrick to those instances where a prior sentence is modified, a subsequently entered sentence for a crime that is punishable by a lesser penalty is engulfed into the first sentence. This is another instance of two crimes for one punishment. I do not think that this is the result envisioned by our legislature when they enacted IC 35-50-l-2(a). I would affirm the trial court.