FRIEDLANDER, J.
Jones contends the trial court erred in sentencing him to consecutive terms of imprisonment because the two offenses were nearly identical and involved state-sponsored buys of cocaine. We will address this argument because the same issue might arise upon remand.
The trial court sentenced Jones to consecutive terms of imprisonment for the two dealing convictions. Jones contends this was improper under Gregory v. State, 644 N.E.2d 543 (Ind. 1994). In Gregory, the defendant sold cocaine to the same police informant on four consecutive days. As a result, the defendant was charged and convicted of four counts of dealing in cocaine as class A felonies based upon the quantity sold. The trial court sentenced him to the presumptive 30-year term for each and ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. The Supreme Court reversed the imposition of consecutive sentences, stating that “consecutive sentences are not appropriate when the State sponsors a series of virtually identical offenses.” Id. at 544. We recently held that the clear import of Gregory is that “the State may not ‘pile on’ sentences by postponing prosecution in order to gather more evidence” in cases “arising from evidence gathered as a direct result of the State-sponsored criminal activity.” Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 635 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
In the instant case, Jones’s two convictions stem from controlled buys involving the same confidential informant, the same quantity of the same drug, and although they occurred at two different locations, they both were supposed to have been consummated at the same place – Greentree. Moreover, they occurred only two weeks apart. Under these circumstances, consecutive sentences are not appropriate. See Gregory v. State, 644 N.E.2d 543.
KIRSCH, J., and ROBB, J., concur.