Pyle, J.
Michael Norris (“Norris”) appeals his convictions following a bifurcated jury trial for Level 4 felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. Norris argues that: (1) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument; (2) the two convictions for resisting law enforcement violate the continuous crime doctrine; and (3) the trial court improperly sentenced him.
We conclude that the State did not commit prosecutorial misconduct; Norris’ misdemeanor conviction for resisting law enforcement violates the continuous crime doctrine; and the trial court did not improperly sentence Norris. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions for the trial court to vacate the Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement conviction and enter a new sentencing order and abstract of judgment to reflect the vacated conviction.
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.
….
At approximately 4:00 a.m. on February 4, 2017, officers from the Beech Grove Police Department responded to a report of a disturbance at a residence. Officer Lee Huffman (“Officer Huffman”) arrived on scene and was directed to a vehicle that was stopped in an alley behind the residence. Officer Huffman observed a silver van in the alley pull away and drive northbound. … Officer Huffman initiated a traffic stop and activated the emergency lights on his marked police car. … The van continued driving at a high rate of speed and eventually crashed into a tree.
Norris, the driver and sole occupant, stumbled out of the van. … Norris then fled northbound toward a tree line and Officer Huffman, who was in a fully marked police uniform, “yell[ed] at him to stop, get on the ground, police.” As Norris fled, Officer Huffman observed Norris toss an object near a tree. … Officer Huffman pursued Norris and was able to apprehend him. Officer Huffman returned to the scene of the accident with Norris and informed an assisting officer of the “general area” where he had seen Norris throw an object to the ground. The assisting officer located a Smith & Wesson nine-millimeter handgun next to a tree on top of some leaves “within seconds” of Officer Huffman advising of the area where the object was thrown.
… A one-day bifurcated jury trial was held on November 30, 2017. …
….
In the first phase of the trial, the jury returned guilty verdicts on the possession aspect of Count I and the two resisting law enforcement counts. Norris then waived his right to a jury trial for the second phase of the trial on his status as a serious violent felon. Norris admitted to the charged prior conviction alleged in support of the serious violent felon charge. The trial court conducted a sentencing hearing on December 18, 2017. For the Level 4 felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon conviction, the trial court sentenced Norris to twelve (12) years, with eight (8) years executed in the Department of
Correction, two (2) years executed on Marion County Community Corrections, and two (2) years suspended to probation. For the Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement conviction, the court sentenced Norris to 636 days in the Department of Correction. For the Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement conviction, the court sentenced Norris to one (1) year in the Department of Correction and ordered all counts to run concurrently. …
….
Norris next argues that his two resisting law enforcement convictions violate the continuous crime doctrine. Specifically, he argues that the trial court erred when it entered judgment of convictions on the two counts because they were based on one continuous incident, violating the continuous crime doctrine. The continuous crime doctrine is a category of Indiana’s prohibition against double jeopardy. It provides that, under such circumstances, a defendant cannot be charged multiple times for the same offense. See Hines v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1216, 1220 (Ind. 2015). The State agrees with Norris. Both Norris and the State ask that we reverse the conviction for Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement to resolve the continuous crime doctrine violation.
….
This Court has held in several cases that a defendant cannot be convicted of both misdemeanor and felony resisting law enforcement when he or she flees in a vehicle, gets out, and immediately flees on foot. See, e.g., Lewis v. State, 43 N.E.3d 689, 691 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015); Nevel v. State, 818 N.E.2d 1, 5 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). …
The instant case is in line with the above cited cases. Norris’ actions of fleeing by vehicle and then on foot constitute one continuous act of resisting law enforcement, and we hold that convictions on both counts cannot stand. Lewis, 43 N.E.2d at 691; Nevel, 818 N.E.2d at 5. … We hereby remand this case to the trial court with instructions to vacate Norris’ conviction for Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and to amend the abstract of judgment, chronological case summary, and any other relevant court documents to reflect the vacated Class A misdemeanor conviction.
….
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
Vaidik, C.J., and Barnes, Sr.J., concur.