Riley, J.
Appellant-Defendant, Dwayne Springfield (Springfield), appeals his conviction for one Count of possession of cocaine and a firearm, a Level 4 felony; one Count of possession of a narcotic drug and a firearm, a Level 5 felony, one Count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (SVF), a Level 4 felony; one Count of battery resulting in bodily injury to an officer; a Level 5 felony; one Count of resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor; one Count of possession of marijuana, a Class B misdemeanor.
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.
Springfield presents a single issue on appeal, which we restate as follows:
Whether his conviction for Level 4 felony possession of cocaine and a firearm, Level 5 felony possession of a narcotic drug and a firearm, and Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a SVF, violate the Double Jeopardy provision of the Indiana Constitution.
….
Springfield contends that his convictions for Level 4 felony possession of cocaine and a firearm, Level 5 felony possession of a narcotic drug and a firearm, and Level 5 felony unlawful possession of firearm by a SVF violate Indiana’s Double Jeopardy principles since they were based on the same evidence—i.e., “possession of a single gun.” …
….
“In situations where a defendant has been convicted of one crime for engaging in the specified additional behavior or causing the specified additional harm, that behavior or harm cannot also be used as an enhancement of a separate crime; either the enhancement or the separate crime is vacated.” Richardson, 717 N.E.2d at 56 (Sullivan, J., concurring). Applying this common law principle to Springfield’s case means that if we determine that he was convicted and punished for the enhancement of possessing a firearm based on the same behavior or harm that forms the basis of his unlawful possession of a firearm by a SVF conviction, then double jeopardy principles are violated. It is readily apparent that the State invited the jury to rely on evidence that Springfield had a gun when he possessed cocaine and fentanyl, to also convict Springfield of unlawful possession of a firearm by a SVF. The same conduct cannot permissibly support both the enhancements and form the basis of a separate crime.
When two convictions are found to contravene 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. Zieman, 990 N.E.2d at 64. In the alternative, a reviewing court may vacate one of the convictions to eliminate a double jeopardy violation. Id. In making that determination, we must be mindful of the penal consequences that the trial court found appropriate. Id.
Because Springfield was convicted and punished for the enhanced drug offenses, based on the same behavior or harm—possession of a firearm—which formed the basis of his unlawful possession of a firearm by a SVF, double jeopardy principles were violated. To remedy the violation, we are reversing Springfield’s conviction and accompanying sentence for the Level 5 felony unlawful possession of a firearm. See Richardson, 717 N.E.2d at 54 (indicating that when convictions violate double jeopardy principles, it is proper to vacate the convictions with the less severe penal consequences).
Based on the foregoing, we remand with instructions to the trial court to vacate Springfield’s Level 5 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by SVF, and to sentence him accordingly.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
Kirsch, J. and Robb, J. concur