Per Curiam.
Ronald Eckelbarger had been dating Rebecca Markley more than two years when Markley tested positive for methamphetamine, in violation of her probation. In order to avoid incarceration, Markley became a police informant. In that capacity, Markley provided Eckelbarger pseudoephedrine pills on both June 6 and June 13, 2014, and received methamphetamine in return several hours later. On June 14, 2014, officers executed a search warrant at Eckelbarger’s home and recovered precursors for the manufacture of methamphetamine as well as evidence of previous manufacturing activity. …
The trial court sentenced Eckelbarger to sixteen years with four years suspended on each of Counts I and II [B-felony dealing in methamphetamine by delivery], to be served concurrently. The trial court sentenced Eckelbarger to sixteen years with four years suspended on Count III [B-felony dealing in methamphetamine by manufacture], and three years on Count IV [D-felon possession of precursors], to run concurrently with each other but consecutive to the sentences on Counts I and II. Eckelbarger thus received an aggregate sentence of thirty-two years, with eight years suspended to probation.
….
We have previously observed that “[c]onsecutive sentences are not appropriate when the State sponsors a series of virtually identical offenses.” Gregory v. State, 644 N.E.2d 543, 544 (Ind. 1994). Consistent with this precedent, the trial court in this case ordered the sentences on Counts I and II to be served concurrently. This same reasoning informs our deliberation and collective sentiment that, under the particular circumstances of this case, the sentences for Counts III and IV (dealing in methamphetamine by manufacture and possession of precursors)—convictions supported by evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant procured based on the dealing methamphetamine by delivery counts—should be served concurrently to the sentences on Counts I and II.
Pursuant to our authority under Appellate Rule 7(B), we find that an aggregate sentence of thirty-two years is inappropriate. Accordingly, we grant transfer and revise Eckelbarger’s sentences on Counts III and IV to run concurrently with his sentences on Counts I and II, for an aggregate sentence of sixteen years. In all other respects we summarily affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision. …
Rush, C.J., and Rucker and David, JJ., concur.
Dickson and Massa, JJ., dissent, believing the extraordinary relief of appellate sentence revision is not warranted in this case.
Ronald Eckelbarger had been dating Rebecca Markley more than two years when Markley tested positive for methamphetamine, in violation of her probation. In order to avoid incarceration, Markley became a police informant. In that capacity, Markley provided Eckelbarger pseudoephedrine pills on both June 6 and June 13, 2014, and received methamphetamine in return several hours later. On June 14, 2014, officers executed a search warrant at Eckelbarger’s home and recovered precursors for the manufacture of methamphetamine as well as evidence of previous manufacturing activity. …
The trial court sentenced Eckelbarger to sixteen years with four years suspended on each of Counts I and II [B-felony dealing in methamphetamine by delivery], to be served concurrently. The trial court sentenced Eckelbarger to sixteen years with four years suspended on Count III [B-felony dealing in methamphetamine by manufacture], and three years on Count IV [D-felon possession of precursors], to run concurrently with each other but consecutive to the sentences on Counts I and II. Eckelbarger thus received an aggregate sentence of thirty-two years, with eight years suspended to probation.
….
We have previously observed that “[c]onsecutive sentences are not appropriate when the State sponsors a series of virtually identical offenses.” Gregory v. State, 644 N.E.2d 543, 544 (Ind. 1994). Consistent with this precedent, the trial court in this case ordered the sentences on Counts I and II to be served concurrently. This same reasoning informs our deliberation and collective sentiment that, under the particular circumstances of this case, the sentences for Counts III and IV (dealing in methamphetamine by manufacture and possession of precursors)—convictions supported by evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant procured based on the dealing methamphetamine by delivery counts—should be served concurrently to the sentences on Counts I and II.
Pursuant to our authority under Appellate Rule 7(B), we find that an aggregate sentence of thirty-two years is inappropriate. Accordingly, we grant transfer and revise Eckelbarger’s sentences on Counts III and IV to run concurrently with his sentences on Counts I and II, for an aggregate sentence of sixteen years. In all other respects we summarily affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision. …
Rush, C.J., and Rucker and David, JJ., concur.
Dickson and Massa, JJ., dissent, believing the extraordinary relief of appellate sentence revision is not warranted in this case.