¶1dissenting.
¶2I realize that Judge Conover, in his opinion in the Court of Appeals, followed ruling precedent in this case and that Justice De-Bruler is correct as to the law at the present time. However, I believe we erred in interpreting Ind.Code § 35-50-1-2. The statute reads:
"Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the court shall determine whether terms of imprisonment shall be served concurrently or consecutively.
(b) If a person commits a crime:
(1) After having been arrested for another crime; and
(2) Before the date he is discharged from probation, parole, or a term of imprisonment imposed for that other crime;
the terms of imprisonment for the crimes shall be served consecutively, regardless of the order in which the crimes are tried and sentences are imposed."
¶3I do not believe the legislature intended to create what I perceive to be a ridiculous result of providing for concurrent time for one convicted, as in the case at bar, who assaults another prisoner after his arrest for the first crime and is tried for that assault before he is ever sentenced on the first crime, but a prisoner who would assault another prisoner after he had been sentenced for his first crime would receive a consecutive sentence.
¶4In spite of the long-standing error in this regard, I think this is the time to correct the error.
¶5PIVARNIK, J., concurs.