¶1concurring in result.
¶2I agree with the majority that Guffey’s convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery and aiding in the commission of a robbery are improper. Because under the instructions both offenses required the State to prove the same set of acts, I conclude that Guffey’s convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery and aiding in the commission of a robbery are not “independently supported, separate and distinct” as required by our decision in Thompson v. State, 259 Ind. 587, 592, 290 N.E.2d 724, 727 (1972). See also Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32, 57 (Ind.1999) (Boehm, J., concurring in result). Guffey’s conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit robbery must be vacated under this common law rule.