Ballenger v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Ballenger v. State

565 N.E.2d 751, 1991 Ind. LEXIS 4, 1991 WL 6212

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 22, 1991

Docket18S04-9101-CR-41

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 565 N.E.2d 751 (Ballenger v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ballenger v. State, 565 N.E.2d 751, 1991 Ind. LEXIS 4, 1991 WL 6212 (Ind. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants William and Jodi Ballenger were each convicted on three counts of receiving stolen property. Ind.Code § 35-43-4-2(b) (West 1988). The Court of Appeals affirmed. Ballenger v. State (1990), 558 N.E.2d 915. We grant transfer and, with one exception, we summarily affirm their determination of each of the issues presented. Ind.Appellate Rule 11(B)(3).

Appellants contend that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentences without making any findings concerning aggravating circumstances. The record does in fact reveal that the trial court did not make any findings concerning either aggravating or mitigating factors. A trial court is required to make a specific and individualized statement of the reasons supporting deviation from the standard sentence. Frappier v. State (1983), Ind., 448 N.E.2d 1188. When the trial court has not done so, we remand with instructions to enter specific findings, if any, to support consecutive sentences or to impose concurrent sentences instead. See Robey v. State (1990), Ind., 555 N.E.2d 145.

We remand the cause for this purpose. The judgment of the trial court is otherwise affirmed.

SHEPARD, C.J., and DeBRULER, GIYAN, DICKSON and KRAHULIK, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellants William and Jodi Ballenger were each convicted on three counts of receiving stolen property. Ind.Code § 35-43-4-2(b) (West 1988). The Court of Appeals affirmed. Ballenger v. State (1990), 558 N.E.2d 915. We grant transfer and, with one exception, we summarily affirm their determination of each of the issues presented. Ind.Appellate Rule 11(B)(3).

Appellants contend that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentences without making any findings concerning aggravating circumstances. The record does in fact reveal that the trial court did not make any findings concerning either aggravating or mitigating factors. A trial court is required to make a specific and individualized statement of the reasons supporting deviation from the standard sentence. Frappier v. State (1983), Ind., 448 N.E.2d 1188. When the trial court has not done so, we remand with instructions to enter specific findings, if any, to support consecutive sentences or to impose concurrent sentences instead. See Robey v. State (1990), Ind., 555 N.E.2d 145.

We remand the cause for this purpose. The judgment of the trial court is otherwise affirmed.

SHEPARD, C.J., and DeBRULER, GIYAN, DICKSON and KRAHULIK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

565 N.E.2d 751, 1991 Ind. LEXIS 4, 1991 WL 6212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballenger-v-state-ind-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack