finding no double jeopardy violation for convictions of possession of precursors and manufacturing methamphetamine when completed methamphetamine was found in addition to various chemical precursors to manufacture additional methamphetamine
How later courts described this case
- finding no double jeopardy violation for convictions of possession of precursors and manufacturing methamphetamine when completed methamphetamine was found in addition to various chemical precursors to manufacture additional methamphetamine
- explaining that “a history of substance abuse is sometimes found by trial courts to be an aggravator, not a mitigator”
- finding possession of precursors with intent to manufacture not to be a factually lesser included offense of manufacturing in defendant’s case
- no double jeopardy violation despite separate convictions for manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine precursors because "there was evidence in this case that [defendant] (1) had already manufactured methamphetamine and (2) possessed the chemical precursors of methamphetamine with the intent to manufacture more of the drug"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*1020 KIRSCH, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I fully coneur in the decision of the majority with regard to all issues exeept that involving sentencing. From that deci-gion, I respectfully dissent.
Our jurisprudence regarding appellate sentence review continues to evolve. As it does, we struggle with the appropriate balance between the deference due the trial court's discretion in its sentencing decision and our constitutional mandate under Article VII, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution to review and revise sentences. Here, for me, the balance tips on the side of review and revision. I believe that a forty-eight year sentence for a non-violent erime given to a defendant whose criminal history is not extensive and in the last twenty-two years includes only three misdemean- or battery convictions is "manifestly unreasonable in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender." I would vacate the sentence and remand with instructions to enter a sentence for twenty-four years.