Robert Bowen v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court

Robert Bowen v. State of Indiana

988 N.E.2d 1134, 2013 WL 3022989, 2013 Ind. LEXIS 464

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedJune 14, 2013

Docket08S02-1306-CR-423

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 988 N.E.2d 1134 (Robert Bowen v. State of Indiana) 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

Robert Bowen v. State of Indiana, 988 N.E.2d 1134, 2013 WL 3022989, 2013 Ind. LEXIS 464 (Ind. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After a jury trial, Robert Bowen was convicted of several offenses (and sentenced to advisory terms) as follows: unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (10 years), dealing in a controlled substance (4 years), possession of a controlled substance (1.5 years) and possession of marijuana (1 year). The trial court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently, except the 4-year sentence was ordered to be served consecutively, for a total executed term of 14 years.

The trial court did not state its reasons for imposing this sentence, either in writing or from the bench, and did not identify any reason for consecutive sentences. Noting that the presentence investigation report disclosed an extensive criminal history and that the trial court had considered the report, the Court of Appeals inferred that Bowen’s criminal history was the reason the trial court had imposed consecutive sentences. See Bowen v. State, No. 08A02-1206-CR-504, 2013 WL 594238 (Ind.Ct.App. Feb. 18, 2013) (mem. dec).

Precedent requires that a trial court “include a reasonably detailed recitation of the trial court’s reasons for imposing a particular sentence,” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490-91 (Ind.2007), includ *1135 ing the reasons for imposing consecutive sentences, see, e.g., Ortiz v. State, 766 N.E.2d 370, 377 (Ind.2002); Smith v. State, 474 N.E.2d 71, 73 (Ind.1985); see also Ind.Code § 35-50-1-2. We choose to remand to the trial court for clarification of its sentencing decision and preparation of a new sentencing order. See Windhorst v. State, 868 N.E.2d 504, 507 (Ind.2007), reh’g denied.

Accordingly, we grant transfer and remand this case to the trial court with instructions to issue an amended sentencing order that complies with the law, without a hearing. See Sanchez v. State, 938 N.E.2d 720, 723 (Ind.2010). The decision of the Court of Appeals is summarily affirmed in all other respects. See App. R. 58(A). Subject only to the rules governing rehearing, this opinion concludes this appeal of the convictions and the original sentencing order.

DICKSON, C.J., and RUCKER, DAVID, MASSA, and RUSH, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

After a jury trial, Robert Bowen was convicted of several offenses (and sentenced to advisory terms) as follows: unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (10 years), dealing in a controlled substance (4 years), possession of a controlled substance (1.5 years) and possession of marijuana (1 year). The trial court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently, except the 4-year sentence was ordered to be served consecutively, for a total executed term of 14 years.

The trial court did not state its reasons for imposing this sentence, either in writing or from the bench, and did not identify any reason for consecutive sentences. Noting that the presentence investigation report disclosed an extensive criminal history and that the trial court had considered the report, the Court of Appeals inferred that Bowen’s criminal history was the reason the trial court had imposed consecutive sentences. See Bowen v. State, No. 08A02-1206-CR-504, 2013 WL 594238 (Ind.Ct.App. Feb. 18, 2013) (mem. dec).

Precedent requires that a trial court “include a reasonably detailed recitation of the trial court’s reasons for imposing a particular sentence,” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490-91 (Ind.2007), includ *1135 ing the reasons for imposing consecutive sentences, see, e.g., Ortiz v. State, 766 N.E.2d 370, 377 (Ind.2002); Smith v. State, 474 N.E.2d 71, 73 (Ind.1985); see also Ind.Code § 35-50-1-2. We choose to remand to the trial court for clarification of its sentencing decision and preparation of a new sentencing order. See Windhorst v. State, 868 N.E.2d 504, 507 (Ind.2007), reh’g denied.

Accordingly, we grant transfer and remand this case to the trial court with instructions to issue an amended sentencing order that complies with the law, without a hearing. See Sanchez v. State, 938 N.E.2d 720, 723 (Ind.2010). The decision of the Court of Appeals is summarily affirmed in all other respects. See App. R. 58(A). Subject only to the rules governing rehearing, this opinion concludes this appeal of the convictions and the original sentencing order.

DICKSON, C.J., and RUCKER, DAVID, MASSA, and RUSH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

988 N.E.2d 1134, 2013 WL 3022989, 2013 Ind. LEXIS 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-bowen-v-state-of-indiana-ind-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack