Robert Bowen v. State of Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Mark K. Leeman Gregory F. Zoeller
Logansport, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Michael Gene Worden
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
______________________________________________________________________________
In the Jun 14 2013, 9:30 am
Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________
No. 08S02-1306-CR-423
ROBERT BOWEN,
Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE OF INDIANA,
Appellee (Plaintiff below).
_________________________________
Appeal from the Carroll Circuit Court
No. 08C01-1007-FB-8
The Honorable Donald E. Currie, Judge
_________________________________
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 08A02-1206-CR-504
_________________________________
June 14, 2013
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 pre-
sentence 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 (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), including 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.
2