¶1dissenting.
¶2I firmly dissent to the majority’s attempt to distinguish Beno v. State (1991), Ind., 581 N.E.2d 922. The crux of the Benoholding to reject the consecutive sentencing is quoted by the the majority. See Majority at 575-576. Here, the police sting operation has resulted in exactly what Benopredicted; a number of additional buys were made and used to hook Howard for additional crimes with each subsequent sale. Although the trial court cited sufficient aggravating factors to impose the maximum sentences on each of Howard’s Class D felonies, as in Beno, the order to serve them consecutively is manifestly unreasonable.
¶3Also, the fact that sentencing follows a guilty plea instead of a trial does not distinguish the case from Beno. See Woodard v. State (1993), Ind.App., 609 N.E.2d 1185.
¶4I would follow the result in Beno: affirm the maximum sentences for the offenses in light of the aggravating factors supporting the enhancement, but reverse the consecutive sentencing and order concurrent sentences.