8 N.E.3d 708
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Venters had prior enhanced sentences under FB-024 (3-yr suspended), FC-064 (11-yr enhanced including OVWI and habitual offender), and FB-011 (19-yr enhanced for reckless homicide and habitual offender).
- The instant charges (FD-011) involved OVWI with prior MVIs used to elevate the felonies and an habitual offender allegation.
- Venters pled guilty December 21, 2012; trial court sentenced to 3 years for OVWI plus 7 years habitual enhancement, with 2 years suspended to probation.
- The court ordered the FD-011 sentence to run consecutively to the previously enhanced sentences under FB-024, FC-064, and FB-011.
- Venters challenged the consecutiveness, arguing lack of statutory authority to run habitual-offender enhancements consecutively.
- The appellate court reversed, holding habitual-offender sentences cannot run consecutively and remanded to make the FD-011 sentence concurrent with prior habitual enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can the present sentence be served consecutively to prior habitual-enhanced sentences? | Venters argues no statutory authority for consecutive habitual enhancements. | State argues statutory intent allows consecutive habitual enhancements across cases. | Consecutive habitual enhancements are improper; run concurrently. |
Key Cases Cited
- Starks v. State, 523 N.E.2d 735 (Ind. 1988) (no express authority to order consecutive habitual sentences)
- Ingram v. State, 761 N.E.2d 883 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (consecutive habitual enhancements improper)
- Breaston v. State, 907 N.E.2d 992 (Ind. 2009) (consecutive habitual sentences not permitted)
- Aslinger v. State, 2 N.E.3d 84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (no authority for consecutive habitual-enhanced sentences)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard in sentencing)