Beno v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that where the crimes committed were nearly identical State- sponsored buys, consecutive sentences were inappropriate
• concluding it was improper to impose maximum consecutive sentences for multiple drug dealing convictions that were based on nearly identical State-sponsored sales as part of an ongoing “sting” operation
• stating that if the defendant “had sold drugs to different persons, or if he had provided a different type of drug during each buy, the consecutive sentences imposed might seem more appropriate”
• finding trial judge’s desire to “send a message” to other drug dealers was not a proper reason to aggravate a sentence
• where trial court’s objective in sentencing was to make an example of defendant
• recodified at Ind.Code Ann. § 35-38-1-7.1(b)(4) (West Supp.1995)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).