Serino 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 “consecutive sentences seem necessary to vindicate the fact that there were separate harms and separate acts against more than one person.”
• holding that “when the perpetrator commits the same offense against two victims, enhanced and consecutive sentences seem necessary to vindicate the fact that there were separate harms and separate acts against more than one person”
• holding that “consecutive sentences seem Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2743 | April 8, 2020 Page 9 of 11 necessary to vindicate the fact that there were separate harms and separate acts against more than one person.”
• noting that enhanced and consecutive sentences “seem necessary to vindicate the fact that there were separate harms and separate acts against more than one person”
• observing that consecutive sentences in some circumstances are appropriate because they “seem necessary to vindicate the fact that there were separate harms and separate acts against more than one person.”
• observing that consecutive sentences in some circumstances are appropriate because they “seem necessary to vindicate the fact that there were separate harms and separate acts against more than one person.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).