Pyle, J.
….
… [T]he State charged Jerden with Count I, Class B misdemeanor reckless driving; Count II, Class A misdemeanor reckless driving; Count III, Class C infraction passing in a no passing zone; and Count IV, Class C infraction speeding….
…[T]he jury found Jerden guilty as charged. The court held a sentencing hearing and found that Jerden’s convictions for Counts III and IV merged with Counts I and II. It entered written judgments of conviction for Counts I and II only and … the Clerk transmitted to the BMV SR-16 forms showing that Jerden was found guilty of all four Counts, including Counts III and IV. Jerden now appeals.
….
Next, Jerden argues that the trial court erred when it sent SR-16 forms, showing that he was found guilty of all four of his charges, to the BMV even though the trial court had entered judgments of conviction on only two of the four counts. …
….
As the State notes, our supreme court has previously held that a merged offense for which a defendant is found guilty, but on which there is neither a judgment nor a sentence, is “unproblematic” as far as double jeopardy is concerned. See Green [v. State], 856 N.E.2d [703,] 704 [(Ind. 2006)]. However, the issue here is not whether the trial court violated the prohibition against double jeopardy, as it is undisputed that the court entered judgments of conviction and sentenced Jerden on only Counts I and II. Instead, the issue is whether the trial court erred by reporting the jury’s findings of “guilty” on Counts III and IV to the BMV. We conclude that it did.
[A] guilty verdict and a judgment of conviction … are not equivalent. Haddix v. State, 827 N.E.2d 1160, 1165 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. “A verdict is the jury’s finding of guilt, but such finding carries no legal consequences unless the trial court enters a judgment of conviction on the verdict.” Id. The language of Indiana Code § 9-30-13-0.5 … provides that a court need only forward to the BMV “a certified abstract of the record of the conviction of a person.” (Emphasis added). Because the plain language of Indiana Code § 9-30-13-0.5 only refers to “convictions,” we conclude that the trial court erred in notifying the BMV of Jerden’s guilty verdicts that did not result in conviction, as that action was not authorized by statute.
….
Crone, J., and Brown, J., concur.