ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Mark K. Leeman Gregory F. Zoeller
Logansport, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Michael Gene Worden
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
______________________________________________________________________________
In the Oct 31 2013, 10:16 am
Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________
No. 08S02-1306-CR-423
ROBERT BOWEN,
Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE OF INDIANA,
Appellee (Plaintiff below).
_________________________________
Appeal from the Carroll Circuit Court
No. 08C01-1007-FB-8
The Honorable Donald E. Currie, Judge
_________________________________
On Petition For Rehearing
_________________________________
October 31, 2013
Per Curiam.
Bowen’s sentencing order did not identify the reasons for the consecutive sentences that
were imposed. We rejected the argument in Bowen’s transfer petition that concurrent sentences
were required, but we sustained his argument that a new sentencing order was and we remanded
the case with instructions for preparation of a new sentencing order “without a hearing.” Bowen
v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1134 (Ind. 2013). Bowen’s rehearing petition notes that the judge who
originally sentenced him is no longer on the bench and he argues that the current judge cannot
clarify the original sentencing decision. Bowen again requests that the case be remanded with
instructions for imposition of concurrent sentences. We again reject that request, but expand our
remand instructions as follows:
On remand for a new sentencing order that responds to concerns raised by the
Supreme Court, the trial court may discharge this responsibility by (1) issuing a
new sentencing order without taking any further action, (2) ordering additional
briefing on the sentencing issue and then issuing a new order without holding a
new sentencing hearing, or (3) ordering a new sentencing hearing at which
additional factual submissions are either allowed or disallowed and then issuing
a new order based on the presentations of the parties.
Taylor v. State, 840 N.E.2d 324 (Ind. 2006).
Accordingly, we grant rehearing for the limited purpose of modifying the remand
instructions, and otherwise deny the rehearing petition.
All Justices concur.
2