¶1concurring.
¶2The trial court specifically and clearly found that the aggravators and mitigators were in balance. From this, I am unable to conclude as does the majority that the court may well have determined to the contrary and that the “aggravators actually outweigh the mitigators.” (Op. at 385).
¶3I do however agree that the court did not use a free-standing “additional” aggra-vator as the basis for imposing consecutive sentences. The court utilized the “sheer number of burglaries” both as an aggravating circumstance in its balancing process and then re-used the same aggravator to impose consecutive sentences. This case, as noted by the majority, is therefore to be distinguished from Lopez v. State, 869 N.E.2d 1254 (Ind.Ct.App.2007).
¶4This court has said: “Ordinarily, a single aggravating circumstance should not be used both to impose an enhanced sentence and consecutive sentences.” Lockhart v. State, 671 N.E.2d 893, 903 (Ind.Ct.App.1996); Staton v. State, 640 N.E.2d 741, 743 (Ind.Ct.App.1994). The sentencing court in this case, however, imposed the advisory ten year sentence on each Class B felony. It did not, therefore, both enhance the sentences and run them consecutively.
¶5Subject to the above caveat, I concur in the revision of the sentences as set forth in the majority opinion.