Court Opinion

ID: 9745238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:42:43.115637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:57.991845
License: Public Domain

HUNTER, Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
Although I concur in the majority opinion regarding the first two Issues, I must respectfully dissent to the majority's conclusion on Issue III.
In Elmore v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 532, 382 N.E.2d 893, this Court held that in determining whether a defendant may be convicted and sentenced for multiple offenses arising from the same act or acts, the proper focus "is on the identity of the offenses, not on the identity of their *1083source". Id. at 589, 382 N.E.2d at 897. Since then we have determined that theft is a lesser included offense of robbery. Rogers v. State, (1979) Ind., 396 N.E.2d 348; Webster v. State, (1978) 270 Ind. 145, 383 N.E.2d 328. In Webster, we said that once the state has proven the elements of armed robbery, it also has proven the elements of theft. 270 Ind. at 149-50, 383 N.E.2d at 331.
While there may be factual situations when this principal would not apply, this case is not one. The facts show that defendant robbed the victim of personal items and her car keys, which were the means of control for the car. He also inquired as to what kind of car she drove. He then used the keys to take the car from the parking lot of the apartment house. Thus defendant committed theft, Ind.Code § 35-48-4-2 (Burns 1979 Repl.), when he took the victim's car keys and obtained unauthorized control over the victim's car with the intent to deprive the victim of the property. At the same time, he committed robbery by intentionally taking property from another person. See Ind.Code § 35-42-5-1 (Burns 1979 Repl.) Here the elements necessary to prove the robbery included the elements necessary to prove theft of the car.
The majority focuses on the charging information and the fact that defendant took the car from the parking lot, not from the victim, and concludes defendant committed a separate offense. This rationale ignores the fact that defendant essentially took the car from the victim when he took her car keys and asked which car was hers. The majority's reasoning also would allow a defendant who robbed a person in his home, taking car keys and removing a car from the garage, to be convicted of both theft and robbery while a defendant who robbed a person in his garage and took a car could be convicted of robbery or theft but not both. This result conflicts with the rationale of Elmore and Webster. Contrary to the majority's conclusion, the taking of the car from the parking lot was not an additional theft, unrelated to those in the apartment. Rather, it was a lesser included offense of the robbery of the victim's car keys and personal property. See Holt v. State, (1978) 178 Ind.App. 631, 383 N.E.2d 467.
Therefore, I believe the trial court erred when it sentenced defendant for both robbery and theft. I would remand the cause to the trial court with instructions to vacate the judgment and sentence on the theft conviction.
PRENTICE, J., concurs.