identifying the SVF statute as a progressive penalty statute
How later courts described this case
- identifying the SVF statute as a progressive penalty statute
- “It has long been established that double enhancements are not permissible . . . .”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DICKSON, C.J.,
concurs, noting that, notwithstanding Justice MASSA’S informative and persuasive dissent, I prefer to adhere to our existing controlling precedent of Mills v. State, 868 N.E.2d 446 (Ind.2007), to which the Legislature has not responded with any contrary explicit legislative direction.
MASSA, J., dissents with separate opinion.