Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 35-50-2-13 (2026)

Use of firearms in controlled substance offenses under IC 35-48-4-1 through IC 35-48-4-4

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 13. (a) The state may seek, on a page separate from the rest of a charging instrument, to have a person who allegedly committed an offense of dealing in a controlled substance under IC 35-48-4-1 through IC 35-48-4-4 sentenced to an additional fixed term of imprisonment if the state can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knowingly or intentionally:

(1) used a firearm; or

(2) possessed a:

(A) handgun in violation of IC 35-47-2-1.5;

(B) sawed-off shotgun in violation of federal law; or

(C) machine gun in violation of IC 35-47-5-8;

while committing the offense.

     (b) If the person was convicted of the offense in a jury trial, the jury shall reconvene to hear evidence in the enhancement hearing. If the trial was to the court, or the judgment was entered on a guilty plea, the court alone shall hear evidence in the enhancement hearing.

     (c) If the jury (if the hearing is by jury) or the court (if the hearing is to the court alone) finds that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knowingly or intentionally committed an offense as described in subsection (a), the court may sentence the person to an additional fixed term of imprisonment of not more than five (5) years, except as follows:

(1) If the firearm is a sawed-off shotgun, the court may sentence the person to an additional fixed term of imprisonment of not more than ten (10) years.

(2) If the firearm is a machine gun or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, the court may sentence the person to an additional fixed term of imprisonment of not more than twenty (20) years. The additional sentence under this subdivision is in addition to any additional sentence imposed under section 11 of this chapter for use of a firearm in the commission of an offense.

As added by P.L.148-1995, SEC.6. Amended by P.L.71-2005, SEC.14; P.L.84-2015, SEC.5; P.L.175-2022, SEC.17.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 2001–2017 · leading case: Christopher Cross v. State of Indiana, 15 N.E.3d 569 (Ind. 2014).
Christopher Cross v. State of Indiana, 15 N.E.3d 569 (Ind. 2014). · cites it 8× “See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-13 . After a bench trial Cross was found guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of fifty years, which included a twenty-year sentence enhancement for the habitual offender adjudication.”
Micheau v. State, 893 N.E.2d 1053 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “[7] Ind.Code § 35-50-2-13 (Supp.2005). [8] At the end of Micheau's argument, he mentions that the search was "unreasonable and violates Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.”
Christopher Cross v. State of Indiana, 997 N.E.2d 1125 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “Indiana Code section 35-50-2-13 provides that the State may seek “to have a person who allegedly committed an offense of dealing in a controlled substance .”
Est. of Heck Ex Rel. Heck v. Stoffer, 752 N.E.2d 192 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “§ 35-50-2-13 (one of numerous statutes providing additional fixed term of imprisonment for using/possessing a handgun while committing an offense, here, dealing in a controlled substance); id.”
Comer v. State, 936 N.E.2d 1266 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “The court enhanced that sentence by five years pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-13. The enhancement of a sentence pursuant to statute does not affect where the sentence on the underlying offense falls within the statutory range.”
Robert Micheau v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 74 N.E.3d 567 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Specifically, he asserted a new claim that he was entitled to a bifurcated trial on the sentence enhancement for count 1 pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-13, and that because he did not receive a separate trial, he was entitled to have the ten-year enhancement vacated…”
Slade v. State, 942 N.E.2d 115 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “Indiana Code sections 35-50-2-13 and 35-50-2-2 are two separate and independent provisions of Indiana’s statutory sentencing scheme.”
Kevin M. Dolick v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “2 Ind. Code § 35-50-2-13 (a)(1) (2015). Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1701-CR-21 | December 6, 2017 Page 2 of 6 misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license, two counts of Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine, two counts of Level 6 felony…”
Rosalio Pedraza v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “additional term when: (1) imposing consecutive sentences for nonviolent felony convictions arising out of a single episode of criminal conduct under Indiana Code section 35-50-1-2, (2) when imposing an additional fixed term to a habitual offender under Indiana Code section…”
— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-13(a) — 1 case
Christopher Cross v. State of Indiana, 15 N.E.3d 569 (Ind. 2014). “See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-13 . After a bench trial Cross was found guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of fifty years, which included a twenty-year sentence enhancement for the habitual offender adjudication.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.