Baker, J.
Montgomery argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss because a plain reading of Indiana Code section 11-8-8-11(a) in conjunction with Indiana Code section 11-8-8-17 creates a single duty for a sex offender to register with the appropriate law enforcement officials when moving between counties in Indiana. Therefore, Montgomery contends he can only be guilty of one offense.
Montgomery, as a sex or violent offender, was required to register pursuant to Indiana Code section 11-8-8-7. When he moved to Vanderburgh County, Indiana Code section 11-8-8-11(a) [footnote omitted] required him to report to officials in Pike County and in Vanderburgh County. . . . .
. . . .
However, Montgomery’s interpretation does not comport with our reading of Indiana Code section 11-8-8-17(a). There are two duties here, one for a sex offender to reside at his registered address in Pike County and one to register as a sex offender in Vanderburgh County. Montgomery is guilty of two divisible offenses. Therefore, he could fulfill or omit one duty without fulfilling or omitting the other. As such, we cannot find that Montgomery was charged twice with the same offense for the same act. Rather, we conclude that he was properly charged twice for two separate offenses.
BARNES, J., and CRONE, J., concur.