Baker, J.
Brandon Black appeals his convictions for Level 2 Felony Conspiracy to Commit Robbery Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury and Level 2 Felony Robbery Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury. He argues that he was denied the right to counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings, that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence the victim’s identification of Black, and that his enhanced convictions violate Indiana’s double jeopardy law. We find that Black was denied the right to counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings but that he was not prejudiced by the denial, that any error of admitting into evidence the victim’s identification was harmless, and that his enhanced convictions violated double jeopardy. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
….
… At sentencing, the trial court imposed consecutive thirty-year sentences for both Level 2 felonies for an aggregate of sixty years imprisonment. …
….
Black contends that his enhanced convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery violate Indiana’s double jeopardy law. He asks this Court to reduce his robbery conviction from a Level 2 felony to a Level 5 felony. The State concedes a double jeopardy violation.
Article 1, Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution provides that “[n]o person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense.” Two or more offenses are the same offense in violation of this section “if, with respect to either the statutory elements of the challenged crimes or the actual evidence used to convict, the essential elements of one challenged offense also establish the essential elements of another challenged offense.” Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32, 49 (Ind. 1999). Double jeopardy is violated when “a defendant’s conviction for one crime is enhanced for . . . causing particular additional harm” because that “harm cannot also be used as an enhancement of a separate crime.” … When two convictions are found to violate double jeopardy principles, “a reviewing court may remedy the violation by reducing either conviction to a less serious form of the same offense if doing so will eliminate the violation.” Richardson, 717 N.E.2d at 54. Whether multiple convictions violate double jeopardy is a question of law, which this Court reviews de novo. Rexroat v. State, 966 N.E.2d 165, 168 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
In this case, the information for the conspiracy to commit robbery resulting in serious bodily injury charge stated that Black agreed with another person to take property “by using force; said act resulting in serious bodily injury to Sanjay Amin; to-wit: knocking out three teeth . . . .” … The information for the robbery resulting in serious bodily injury charge stated that Black knowingly took property “by using force; said act resulting in serious bodily injury to Sanjay Amin, to-wit: knocking out three teeth . . . .”
Black argues that the same bodily injury suffered by Amin—the knocking out of three of his teeth—was used to enhance both of Black’s convictions, which is contrary to Indiana law. See, e.g., Pierce v. State, 761 N.E.2d 826, 830 (Ind. 2002) (“where a burglary conviction is elevated to a Class A felony based on the same bodily injury that forms the basis of a Class B robbery conviction, the two cannot stand”).
We agree, and we remedy the violation by reducing Black’s robbery conviction to a Level 5 felony. See Young v. State, 57 N.E.3d 857, 860 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) …We amend his sentence accordingly to the maximum sentence allowed for a Level 5 felony, which is six years. We remand to the trial court with instructions to enter judgment of conviction for robbery as a Level 5 felony and amend Black’s sentence to six years, to be served consecutively to Black’s thirty-year sentence for conspiracy to commit robbery resulting in serious bodily injury.
Barnes, J., and Crone, J., concur.