MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING
[1] Ivy Nunn requests rehearing of our memorandum decision issued April 24, 2024, in which we affirmed Nunns sixty-three year-sentence for murder. Nunn v. State, 23A-CR-1375 (Ind. Ct. App. April 24, 2024). Specifically, he argues we erroneously stated part of his argument in our analysis of whether his sentence is inappropriate based on his character. We concede that we misstated his argument and grant his petition for rehearing to address that misstatement.
[2] In our analysis of whether Nunns sentence is inappropriate based on his character, we stated, “in this argument, Nunn omits the fact that he also had four conduct violations while incarcerated pending trial.” Id. at 9. However, as Nunn points out in his request for rehearing, he acknowledged the conduct violations in his brief when he stated, “Nunn had four disciplinary incidents while incarcerated pre-trial at the ADC – three assaults and possession of contraband.” (Br. of Appellant at 26.) As Nunn did acknowledge his conduct violations in his argument regarding his character, we erred by indicating he did not acknowledge them.
[3] Nevertheless, this error does not change the outcome of Nunns case. In our original opinion, we held Nunns sentence is not inappropriate based on the nature of the offense and his character. Slip op. at 9. Specifically, regarding the nature of his offense, we noted the “really disturbing” way Nunn disposed of Morriss body in a ditch after shooting Morris. Id. at 8 (quoting the record). When considering Nunns character, we noted that his criminal history spans twenty years and he has been convicted of nine crimes, including four offenses involving unlawful possession of a firearm. Additionally, we noted his conduct violations in jail pending trial and the fact he was on probation at the time of the crime. Our characterization of Nunns argument did not alter the factors we considered, and those factors supported our holding that Nunns sentence is not inappropriate based on his character. Accordingly, we grant Nunns petition for rehearing to concede our error but affirm our original opinion in all other respects.
[4] Affirmed.
May, Judge.
Vaidik, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.