# Little v. State

> Indiana Supreme Court · March 25, 1985 · 475 N.E.2d 677

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9739587

## Case

- **Full name:** Floyd LITTLE, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below)
- **Court:** Indiana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 25, 1985
- **Citations:** 475 N.E.2d 677; 1985 Ind. LEXIS 783
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by DeBRULER
- **Judges:** Givan, Pivarnik, Debruler, Prentice
- **Cited by:** 19 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9739587

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that there was no error in the imposition of consecutive sentences where “trial court segregated the crimes committed against each rape victim and considered the fact that this defendant had committed two separate crimes against two different victims”
- holding that witness had an independent basis to support in-court identification where the description made prior to any pre-trial identification was "substantially an accurate description of the defendant”
- observing that commencement of a prosecution is governed by Ind.Code § 35-34-1-1, which provides that the filing of an information or indictment begins the formal criminal process

## Opinion text

DeBRULER, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I vote to affirm these convictions, but to remand to the sentencing judge for a clear and meaningful statement justifying the imposition of consecutive sentences. The law invests the sentencing judge with the authority to impose consecutive sentences, however in exercising this authority the court must give specific reasons for its actions. Brown v. State (1982), Ind., 442 N.E.2d 1109 . The only basis offered by the judge on the record to support his determination of consecutive sentences is that there were "two separate crimes". In my view such statement is not sufficient to satisfy this requirement of specificity.
PRENTICE, J., concurs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9739587. Public record. Not legal advice.