Barteau, Senior J.
William P. Stickrod appeals his convictions of possession of methamphetamine,a Level 5 felony; and possession of paraphernalia, a Class C misdemeanor.
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.
Stickrod raises three issues, which we restate as:
…
III. Whether Stickrod’s two convictions for possession of methamphetamine violate the federal constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy.
At 6:50 p.m. on December 17, 2016, Officer Grant Leroux of the Lafayette Police Department and other officers arrived at a house in Lafayette, Indiana. The house belonged to Stickrod’s mother, but Officer Leroux knew that Stickrod lived there. The officers were there to execute warrants to arrest Stickrod for failing to appear at court hearings in two criminal cases.
… The officers entered the house and discovered Stickrod hiding in the garage once again. They handcuffed him and, during a search of his person, discovered a glasses case in a pants pocket. The case contained a glass pipe and a small plastic bag which in turn contained a white powdery substance. Subsequent testing revealed the presence of .8 grams of methamphetamine in the bag and methamphetamine residue on the pipe.
The State charged Stickrod with possession of methamphetamine, a Level 6 felony; possession of paraphernalia, a Class C misdemeanor; and possession of methamphetamine, a Level 5 felony. …
The jury determined Stickrod was guilty of the Level 6 felony and the Class C misdemeanor, and the court entered a judgment of conviction. Stickrod waived his right to a jury trial on the Level 5 felony and the habitual offender sentencing enhancement. During the second phase of trial, Stickrod pleaded guilty to the Level 5 felony and to being an habitual offender.
At sentencing, the court dismissed the habitual offender enhancement and imposed a sentence on the Level 6 felony, the Level 5 felony, and the Class C misdemeanor. The court further held the Level 6 felony would merge with the Level 5 felony. This appeal followed.
….
Stickrod argues his convictions for possession of methamphetamine as Level 5 and Level 6 felonies violate his federal constitutional protection against double jeopardy, and that the court’s merger of the counts at sentencing failed to correct the problem. We agree.
A double jeopardy violation occurs when judgments of conviction are entered for the same criminal act and cannot be remedied by the “practical effect” of concurrent sentences or by merger after conviction has been entered. West v. State, 22 N.E.3d 872, 875 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. A trial court’s act of merging, without also vacating the conviction, is not sufficient to cure a double jeopardy violation. Id. The State agrees that “a separate but merged conviction for [a] lesser included offense cannot stand.”
The jury determined Stickrod was guilty of possession of methamphetamine as a Level 6 felony, and the trial court entered a “judgment of conviction” on that count. Later, after Stickrod pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine as a Level 5 felony, the court entered another judgment of conviction. The court imposed sentences for both convictions of possession of methamphetamine but determined that the two counts would “merge.” The entry of judgments of convictions for both counts violated double jeopardy, and merely merging the two convictions at sentencing was insufficient to correct the violation. We reverse the conviction for possession of methamphetamine as a Level 6 felony and remand with instructions to vacate that conviction. The conviction for possession of methamphetamine as a Level 5 felony remains in effect.
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Bradford, J., and Pyle, J., concur.