Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThe Indiana Supreme Court granted a man’s petition for rehearing regarding his sentencing order, but again rejected his claim that concurrent sentences are required.
Robert Bowen was sentenced for 14 years for convictions on multiple felony gun and drug charges. The Supreme Court affirmed in June, but ordered the trial court to revise the sentencing order to explain why one conviction was ordered served consecutive to the others. The new sentencing order was to be prepared “without a hearing.”
But the judge who originally sentenced Bowen is no longer on the bench, so Bowen argued that the current judge can’t clarify the original sentencing decision.
The justices rejected Bowen’s request that they order he receive concurrent sentences, but did modify their remand instructions Thursday in a two-page per curiam decision in Robert Bowen v. State of Indiana, 08S02-1306-CR-423.
“On remand for a new sentencing order that responds to concerns raised by the Supreme Court, the trial court may discharge this responsibility by (1) issuing a new sentencing order without taking any further action, (2) ordering additional briefing on the sentencing issue and then issuing a new order without holding a new sentencing hearing, or (3) ordering a new sentencing hearing at which additional factual submissions are either allowed or disallowed and then issuing a new order based on the presentations of the parties,” the opinion states.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.