concurring in result.
While I agree that the majority has reached a correct result in this case and concur in affirming the judgment, I cannot and do not agree that ordinarily a single aggravating factor should not be used both to enhance a sentence and to impose consecutive sentences unless it is particularly egregious. The majority in so holding is adding a factor which has neither statutory nor case law basis. In fact, I believe our case law clearly indicates the contrary.
Only one aggravating factor is necessary to support an enhanced sentence. Duvall v. State (1989), Ind., 540 N.E.2d 34, 36; Schick v. State (1991), Ind.App., 570 N.E.2d 918, 925; Moore v. State (1991), Ind.App., 569 N.E.2d 695, 699. The same aggravating factors may be used both to enhance a sentence and impose consecutive sentences. Parrish v. State (1987), Ind., 515 N.E.2d 516, 521; Moore at 699. While both Parrish and Moore involve more than one aggravating factor, neither suggest that multiple factors are required to support both enhancement and imposition of consecutive sentences. Indeed, if the same factors can support both, and a single factor will support either, there is no logical reason why that same single aggravating factor cannot support both. This court recently has so held. Cleary v. State, Ind.App., 638 N.E.2d 431. Despite the majority’s criticism of Cleary, I believe it correctly states the law and I would follow that decision.
Neither can I subscribe to footnote 4 in the majority opinion. It is not our function to speculate concerning what some other judge may or may not have done or as to what might have been appropriate under other circumstances.
With the reservations herein expressed, I concur in the result.