Massa, J.
Steven Clippinger murdered his brother and sister-in-law and was sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment without parole, with an additional term of twenty years for his conviction as a serious violent felon in possession of a firearm, all to be served consecutively. Clippinger appeals the sentence only, claiming that the trial court was without statutory authorization to impose consecutive life sentences, and that the trial court’s sentencing order in this case was inadequate. We agree with Clippinger’s second contention, but find the sentence imposed was proper, and thus exercise our appellate prerogative to sentence Clippinger to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment without parole, and affirm the additional consecutive term of twenty years imprisonment for the firearm possession conviction.
Facts and Procedural History
Clippinger was first convicted of murder in 1990, at the age of 18, and served twenty years in prison, being released from parole in 2010. Just two years later, in June 2012, Clippinger’s brother Matthew took from him a .38 caliber revolver and refused to give it back. … Clippinger returned to Matthew’s home later that night, and shot him in the driveway multiple times, including two crippling shots in the lower back. And after shooting Matthew, Clippinger repeatedly pistol-whipped him in the head, causing multiple blunt force injuries. Clippinger then fired at Matthew’s wife Lisa when she came to the garage to investigate; she then fled back into the house, and Clippinger chased after her and killed her. …
After a bench trial, Clippinger was convicted of two counts of murder and of being a serious violent felon in possession of a firearm. … The trial court sentenced Clippinger to serve two life sentences without parole consecutively; and, after a subsequent sentencing hearing, imposed an additional 20-year sentence for being a serious violent felon in possession of a firearm, also to run consecutively.
On direct appeal, Clippinger did not challenge his convictions, but only the circumstances of sentencing, claiming: (1) Indiana law did not permit a trial court to impose consecutive sentences of life imprisonment without parole; (2) the sentencing order was insufficient because it failed to specifically identify mitigating factors and balance them against the aggravating factors; and (3) it was improper to conduct a further sentencing hearing after the sentence of life without parole had already been imposed. Before considering the merits, this Court remanded for a revised sentencing order in light of its recent decision in Lewis v. State, which affirmed that when imposing a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole or a sentence of death, the trial court must make specific findings in accordance with the four factors described in Harrison v. State, 644 N.E.2d 1243 (Ind. 1995) and Pittman v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1246 (Ind. 2008), and which also held that the applicable sentencing statute “does not require a trial court to impose no less than a sentence of life without possibility of parole if [it finds the aggravators outweigh the mitigators].” 34 N.E.3d 240, 249 n.8 (Ind. 2015) (emphasis in original). The trial court then issued a Revised Order on remand, containing headings consistent with the requirements of Harrison, Pittman and Lewis, and ultimately continued to impose all three sentences consecutively, including the two sentences of life imprisonment without parole. … The parties were invited to submit supplemental briefing as to any new or different issues raised by the Revised Order, but declined to do so. Accordingly, we find that the Revised Order has mooted Clippinger’s third contention on appeal, and shall address the remaining two.
….
A Sentence of Life Without Parole Is a “Term of Imprisonment”
Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-50-1-2(c).
Clippinger claims that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive life sentences under Indiana Code section 35-50-1-2(c) (2014) (“Section 2(c)”), citing our recent decision in Isom v. State that consecutive death sentences exceed the statutory authority granted trial courts under Section 2(c) to impose consecutive sentences for “terms of imprisonment” …
Clippinger claims that a life sentence is akin to a death sentence because it too lacks a “contemplated future release into society,” and the period of incarceration is for an indefinite term; thus it is not a “term of imprisonment” under Section 2(c). …
….
The crux of the issue is whether the legislature intended a sentence of life without parole to fit within the definition of a “term of imprisonment.” The statute under which Clippinger was sentenced, Indiana Code section 35-50-2-9(g), provides the clearest indication of that intent: “If the hearing is to the court alone . . . the court shall: (1) sentence the defendant to death; or (2) impose a term of life imprisonment without parole; only if it makes the findings described in subsection (l).” Given that the sentence of life imprisonment without parole is expressly labeled a “term” of imprisonment, the most logical reading of Section 2(c) is, therefore, that it permits consecutive life sentences. …
….
Clippinger’s Sentence is Proper Despite the Revised Order’s Error.
Clippinger also challenges the adequacy of the trial court’s sentencing decision, citing our precedents demanding particular requirements of our trial judges in imposing a capital sentence.
….
We find the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt its two alleged statutory aggravating factors: (1) Clippinger has previously been convicted of murder, Ind. Code § 35-50-2-9(b)(7); and (2) Clippinger “committed another murder, at any time, regardless of whether the defendant has been convicted of that other murder,” Ind. Code § 35-50-2-9(b)(8). We also find no statutory factors in mitigation; however, the court can (and indeed should) consider significant non-statutory mitigating factors supported by the record in conducting capital sentencing, though the court “is not obligated ‘to credit or weigh a possible mitigating circumstance as defendant suggests it should be credited or weighed.’” Trowbridge v. State, 717 N.E.2d 138, 149 (Ind. 1999) (quoting Archer v. State, 689 N.E.2d 678, 684 (Ind. 1997)). …
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we impose upon Steven Clippinger two consecutive sentences of life imprisonment without possibility of parole, and affirm the additional consecutive sentence of twenty years for being a serious violent felon in possession of a firearm.
Rush, C.J., and Rucker, David, and Slaughter, JJ., concur.