Defendant (Appellant) was convicted of five (5) counts of Armed Robbery after trial by jury. The trial court impоsed four (4) ten (10) year concurrent terms of imprisonment on Counts I — IV and one ten (10) year consecutive tеrm of imprisonment on Count V. This direct appeal 1 presents the following issues:
(1) Whether on this record one Robbery occurred or five Robberies occurred.
(2) Whether the trial court properly sentenced the defendant.
On August 3, 1978, Mr. and Mrs. Orville Wilson, co-owners of the Flamingo Motel in Tipton County, were entertaining relatives in their living quarters. The quartеrs were adjacent to and opened into the motel office. The defendant and another burst intо the quarters armed with a shotgun and announced a hold up. By such intimidation, they took Mr. Wilson’s watch and some money from his person. From his nephew, Glen Hunsucker, they took money and credit cards; from Mrs. Hunsucker, they toоk her purse and from the Hunsuckers’ son, David, his watch. They exited, still holding the victims at bay with the shotgun, and as they went through the office, they took the business funds from the cash drawer.
Defendant, relying on
Williams v. State,
(1979) Ind.,
In decisions following
Williams, supra,
we made it clear that the rule thereof applies only where thе bandit takes property belonging to a single business entity from each of several persons.
Young v. State,
(1980) Ind.,
In the cаse before us, Defendant and his cohorts took property from four of the five persons acсosted in the living quarters. In each instance, the property taken was owned by the person from whom it wаs taken and was in their possession, hence no “Williams” question can be presented with respect to them, and four robberies clearly occurred. It must be noted, however, that no property was takеn at that time from Mrs. Wilson.
As the bandits went through the office, they took money from the cash drawer. This money was the jointly owned property of Mr. and Mrs. Wilson, hence Mrs. Wilson, at that point, became a victim of the robbery, and Williams is not applicable. It might appear that a fifth robbery could not be charged, inasmuch as оne had already been charged with respect to Mr. Wilson and he was a proprietor of the business, hence an owner of the money. However, Mrs. Wilson’s interest therein is sufficient basis for the charge, notwithstanding that it was jointly with and undivided from that of Mr. Wilson.
ISSUE II
Defendant contends that the trial court failed to make a prоper record of his sentencing in violation of Ind.Code § 35-4.-1-4-3 (35-50-1A-3 (Burns 1979)). He asserts prejudice in the trial court’s failurе to inform him of the reasons for the imposition of consecutive sentences. The entire recоrd of June 15, 1979 sentencing follows:
“Comes now the state of Indiana by Prosecuting Attorney. Comes also defendаnt in person with counsel, Jeffrey Lockwood. Pre-sentence investigation by the Probation Officer of Grant County, Indiana, filed. Court now ascertains that the name of the defendant is Bruce Richardson and that his true аge is twenty (20) years. Upon the verdicts of the jury heretofore returned the Court now finds the defendant is guilty of Count I, robbery, a class B felony; Count II, robbery, a class B felony; Count III, robbery, a class B felony; Count IV, robbery, a clаss B felony; and Count V, robbery, a class B Felony. Upon such findings, the Court now orders defendant committed to the сustody of the Indiana Department of Corrections for 10 years on Count I, 10 years on Count II, 10 years on Count III, 10 yеars on Count IV, and 10 years on Count V, and further orders the defendant serve Count V consecutively with Counts I, II, III, and IV, the sаme being served concurrently and further orders that he be disfranchised during the term of his imprisonment, that he be given credit for 201 days spent in confinement prior to sentencing, and given credit for good time conduct for said time spent in confinement. The Court now finds that the defendant is indigent and the costs are remitted. Judgment on findings. Thе Court now advises defendant that he has a right to file a motion to correct errors and to take аn appeal. Defendant advises the Court that he does desire to file a motion to correct errors and to appeal.”
When a judge increases or decreases the basic sentenсe, suspends the sentence, or imposes consecutive terms of imprisonment, the record should disсlose what factors were considered by the judge to be mitigating or
*232
aggravating circumstances.
Gardner v. State,
(1979) Ind.,
To guide the trial judge in making the required findings wе refer him to our recent decisions in
Green v. State,
(1981) Ind.,
The cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions that it make findings, if any, supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences or, in the alternative, re-sentence the defendant to concurrent terms.
Green v. State,
(1981) Ind.,
Notes
. Defendant did not receive a sentence in excess of ten (10) years imprisonment on any one count charged in the information. The State, however, does not challenge our jurisdiction. Ind.R.App.P. 4(A)(7). Because of the importance of the issues presented, we exercise our inherent authority to review the case.
State v. New,
(1981) Ind.,