Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1891–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Powell v. Stategreen2 sentences2020However, we disagreed, stating “[t]he basis for the gross impact that consecutive sentences may have is the moral principle that Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-3008 | October 8, 2020 Page 11 of 16 each separate and distinct criminal act deserves a separately experienced punishment.” Id. 2019See Powell v. State , 895 N.E.2d 1259 , 1263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) ("The basis for the gross impact that consecutive sentences may have is the moral principle that each separate and distinct criminal act deserves a separately experienced punishment"), trans. denied . [15] Welch argues that he was overwhelmed by his parenting responsibilities and that the State did not show that he had inflicted long-term injury on C.W. | 4 | 5 |
Hart v. Stategreen2 sentences2019“The basis for the gross impact that consecutive sentences may have is the moral principle that each separate and distinct criminal act deserves a separately experienced punishment.” Hart v. State, 829 N.E.2d 541, 545 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). 2008Hart v. State, 829 N.E.2d 541, 545 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). | 2 | 2 |
Mitchem v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See also Mitchem v. State, 685 N.E.2d 671, 680 (Ind. 1997) (explaining that the “basis for the gross impact which consecutive sentences may have is the moral principle that each separate and distinct criminal act deserves a separately experienced punishment”). [16] Affirmed. 2005Mitchem v. State, 685 N.E.2d 671, 680 (Ind.1997). | 2 | 2 |
Walker v. Stategreen1 sentence2018While Pacheco-Manzo cites to cases in which the imposition of consecutive sentences was found to be inappropriate where the crimes were committed against one victim, see, e.g., Sanchez v. State, 938 N.E.2d 720 , 722–23 (Ind. 2010); Monroe v. State, 886 N.E.2d 578 , 580–81 (Ind. 2008); Harris v. State, 897 N.E.2d 927 , 929–30; Walker v. State, 747 N.E.2d 536, 538 (Ind. 2001), none Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-252 | September 25, 2018 Page 9 of 10 stands for the proposition that Indiana law generally favors concurrent sentences in such cases. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morgan v. State
green
2 sentences1998To impose consecutive sentences, there must be at least one aggravator, Morgan , 675 N.E.2d at 1072 , but the court is not limited to the factors identified in Ind. Code § 35-38-1-7 . 1997To impose consecutive sentences, there must be at least one aggravator, Morgan, 675 N.E.2d at 1072 , but the court is not limited to the factors identified in Ind.Code § 35-38-1-7. | 2 | 1997–1998 |
Starks v. State
green
2 sentences1997“The basis for the gross impact which consecutive sentences may have is the moral principle that each separate and distinct criminal act deserves a separately experienced punishment.” Id. 1990This Court has stated that "a basis for the gross impact which consecutive sentences may have [on the total executed sentence to be served] is ... the moral principle that each separate and distinct criminal act deserves a separately experienced punishment[,]" Starks v. State (1988), Ind., 523 N.E.2d 735, 737 , and this Court has held that trial courts may consider multiple convictions for multiple offenses as an aggravating circumstance which will support the imposition of enhanced or consecutive sentences, Hampton v. State (1990), Ind., 553 N.E.2d 132 (multiple crimes committed against multi | 2 | 1990–1997 |
Sanchez v. State
green
1 sentence2018While Pacheco-Manzo cites to cases in which the imposition of consecutive sentences was found to be inappropriate where the crimes were committed against one victim, see, e.g., Sanchez v. State, 938 N.E.2d 720 , 722–23 (Ind. 2010); Monroe v. State, 886 N.E.2d 578 , 580–81 (Ind. 2008); Harris v. State, 897 N.E.2d 927 , 929–30; Walker v. State, 747 N.E.2d 536, 538 (Ind. 2001), none Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-252 | September 25, 2018 Page 9 of 10 stands for the proposition that Indiana law generally favors concurrent sentences in such cases. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Monroe v. State
green
1 sentence2018While Pacheco-Manzo cites to cases in which the imposition of consecutive sentences was found to be inappropriate where the crimes were committed against one victim, see, e.g., Sanchez v. State, 938 N.E.2d 720 , 722–23 (Ind. 2010); Monroe v. State, 886 N.E.2d 578 , 580–81 (Ind. 2008); Harris v. State, 897 N.E.2d 927 , 929–30; Walker v. State, 747 N.E.2d 536, 538 (Ind. 2001), none Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-252 | September 25, 2018 Page 9 of 10 stands for the proposition that Indiana law generally favors concurrent sentences in such cases. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Harris v. State
green
1 sentence2018While Pacheco-Manzo cites to cases in which the imposition of consecutive sentences was found to be inappropriate where the crimes were committed against one victim, see, e.g., Sanchez v. State, 938 N.E.2d 720 , 722–23 (Ind. 2010); Monroe v. State, 886 N.E.2d 578 , 580–81 (Ind. 2008); Harris v. State, 897 N.E.2d 927 , 929–30; Walker v. State, 747 N.E.2d 536, 538 (Ind. 2001), none Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-252 | September 25, 2018 Page 9 of 10 stands for the proposition that Indiana law generally favors concurrent sentences in such cases. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Little v. State
green
2 sentences1990This Court has stated that "a basis for the gross impact which consecutive sentences may have [on the total executed sentence to be served] is ... the moral principle that each separate and distinct criminal act deserves a separately experienced punishment[,]" Starks v. State (1988), Ind., 523 N.E.2d 735, 737 , and this Court has held that trial courts may consider multiple convictions for multiple offenses as an aggravating circumstance which will support the imposition of enhanced or consecutive sentences, Hampton v. State (1990), Ind., 553 N.E.2d 132 (multiple crimes committed against multi 1990This Court has stated that "a basis for the gross impact which consecutive sentences may have [on the total executed sentence to be served] is ... the moral principle that each separate and distinct criminal act deserves a separately experienced punishment[,]" Starks v. State (1988), Ind., 523 N.E.2d 735, 737 , and this Court has held that trial courts may consider multiple convictions for multiple offenses as an aggravating circumstance which will support the imposition of enhanced or consecutive sentences, Hampton v. State (1990), Ind., 553 N.E.2d 132 (multiple crimes committed against multi | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Hampton v. State
green
2 sentences1990This Court has stated that "a basis for the gross impact which consecutive sentences may have [on the total executed sentence to be served] is ... the moral principle that each separate and distinct criminal act deserves a separately experienced punishment[,]" Starks v. State (1988), Ind., 523 N.E.2d 735, 737 , and this Court has held that trial courts may consider multiple convictions for multiple offenses as an aggravating circumstance which will support the imposition of enhanced or consecutive sentences, Hampton v. State (1990), Ind., 553 N.E.2d 132 (multiple crimes committed against multi 1990This Court has stated that "a basis for the gross impact which consecutive sentences may have [on the total executed sentence to be served] is ... the moral principle that each separate and distinct criminal act deserves a separately experienced punishment[,]" Starks v. State (1988), Ind., 523 N.E.2d 735, 737 , and this Court has held that trial courts may consider multiple convictions for multiple offenses as an aggravating circumstance which will support the imposition of enhanced or consecutive sentences, Hampton v. State (1990), Ind., 553 N.E.2d 132 (multiple crimes committed against multi | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Rapp v. Reehling
neutral
1 sentence1891Rapp v. Reehling, 124 Ind. 36 . | 1 | 1891–1891 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.