record should disclose what factors in Indiana

1983In Gardner v. State, (1979) 270 Ind. 627 , 388 N.E.2d 513 , we held that when a judge increases or decreases a basic sentence, suspends a sentence, or imposes consecutive terms of imprisonment, the record should disclose what factors were considered by the judge to be mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

1983In Gardner v. State, (1979) 270 Ind. 627 , 388 N.E.2d 513 , we held that when a judge increases or decreases a basic sentence, suspends a sentence, or imposes consecutive terms of imprisonment, the record should disclose what factors were considered by the judge to be mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

1985Spinks v. State, (1982) Ind., 437 N.E.2d 963 ; Page v. State, (1981) Ind., 424 N.E.2d 1021 , on remand (1982) Ind., 442 N.E.2d 977 , reh. denied (1983).

1982In Richardson v. State, (1981) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 229, 231-32 , we stated: *1092 “When a judge increases or decreases the basic sentence, suspends the sentence, or imposes consecutive terms of imprisonment, the record should disclose what factors were considered by the judge to be mitigating or aggravating circumstances.” See also, Page v. State, (1981) Ind., 424 N.E.2d 1021 ; Green v. State, (1981) Ind., 424 N.E.2d 1014 .

1984Page v. State, (1980) Ind., 410 N.E.2d 1304 ; Gardner v. State, (1979) 270 Ind. 627 , 388 N.E.2d 513 .

1981The court shall make a record of the hearing, including: * * * * * ik “(3) If the court finds aggravating circumstances, a statement of the court’s reasons for selecting the sentence that it imposes.” In Page v. State, (1980) Ind., 410 N.E.2d 1304, 1307 , we stated, quoting Gardner v. State, (1979) Ind., 388 N.E.2d 513 , 517: “* * * [W]hen a judge increases or decreases the basic sentence, suspends the sentence, or imposes consecutive terms of imprisonment, the record should disclose what factors were considered by the judge to be mitigating or aggravating circumstances.” In the case at bar, t

1985Spinks v. State, (1982) Ind., 437 N.E.2d 963 ; Page v. State, (1981) Ind., 424 N.E.2d 1021 , on remand (1982) Ind., 442 N.E.2d 977 , reh. denied (1983).

1983We further provided in Page v. State, (1980) Ind., 410 N.E.2d 1304 , on remand (1981) Ind., 424 N.E.2d 1021 , on remand *661 (1982) Ind., 442 N.E.2d 977 , reh. denied (1983), that the trial judge is confined to certain proper grounds for either increasing or decreasing a presumptive sentence and must state which of said grounds was relied upon to enable the reviewing court to determine the reasonableness of the sentence imposed.

2000In Wiggins v. State (2000) Ind.App., 727 N.E.2d 1, 11 , trans. denied, a panel of this court held that “when a trial court adjusts a presumptive sentence by suspending a portion of that sentence, the record should disclose what factors were considered to be mitigating or aggravating circumstances.” That panel then concluded that it is necessary in such instance for the trial court to explain its sentencing decision.

2000Since the imposition of nonmandatory consecutive sentences has traditionally required the court to balance aggravators and mitigators, Reaves v. State, 586 N.E.2d 847 (Ind.1992), Morgan should not be read as broadly as required by the majority.

2000Since the imposition of nonmandatory consecutive sentences has traditionally required the court to balance aggravators and mitigators, Reaves v. State, 586 N.E.2d 847 (Ind.1992), Morgan should not be read as broadly as required by the majority.

1986Taylor v. State (1982), Ind., 442 N.E.2d 1087 ; IND.CODE 35-50-1-2(a) IND.

1985Spinks v. State, (1982) Ind., 437 N.E.2d 963 ; Page v. State, (1981) Ind., 424 N.E.2d 1021 , on remand (1982) Ind., 442 N.E.2d 977 , reh. denied (1983).

1984Hill v. State, (1983) Ind., 445 N.E.2d 994, 996 . 4 We will disturb the trial court's sentence determination only if it is manifestly unreasonable.

1982In Richardson v. State, (1981) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 229, 231-32 , we stated: *1092 “When a judge increases or decreases the basic sentence, suspends the sentence, or imposes consecutive terms of imprisonment, the record should disclose what factors were considered by the judge to be mitigating or aggravating circumstances.” See also, Page v. State, (1981) Ind., 424 N.E.2d 1021 ; Green v. State, (1981) Ind., 424 N.E.2d 1014 .

1982In Hardin v. State, (1980) 404 N.E.2d 1354, 1359-60 ; quoting Gardner v. State, Ind., 388 N.E.2d 513 at 517 we stated: "When a judge increases or decreases the basic sentence, suspends the sentence or imposes consecutive terms of imprisonment, the record should disclose what factors were considered by the judge to be mitigating or aggravating cireumstane-es." Here, this court remanded this cause to the trial court and ordered the trial judge to make written findings and a statement of the court's reasons for selecting the sentence imposed, setting out aggravating or mitigating cireumstances, i

1982In Richardson v. State, (1981) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 229, 231-32 , we stated: *1092 “When a judge increases or decreases the basic sentence, suspends the sentence, or imposes consecutive terms of imprisonment, the record should disclose what factors were considered by the judge to be mitigating or aggravating circumstances.” See also, Page v. State, (1981) Ind., 424 N.E.2d 1021 ; Green v. State, (1981) Ind., 424 N.E.2d 1014 .