context: R. at 978. The trial court found no mitigating factors. Abel contends the trial court did not "adequately support" the sentence it imposed. Br. of Appellant at 17. In so doing he does not challenge the propriety of the sole aggravating factor the trial court relied on to enhance his sentence.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 702 N.E.2d 694, 699
citation_a.parenthetical: observing that only one valid aggravating factor is necessary to enhance the presumptive sentence
citation_a.sentence: See Smith v. State, 675 N.E.2d 693, 698 (Ind.1996) (noting that the particular circumstances of a crime can be an aggravating circumstance); see also Sherwood v. State, 702 N.E.2d 694, 699 (Ind. 1998) (observing that only one valid aggravating factor is necessary to enhance the presumptive sentence).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 675 N.E.2d 693, 698
citation_b.parenthetical: noting that the particular circumstances of a crime can be an aggravating circumstance
citation_b.sentence: See Smith v. State, 675 N.E.2d 693, 698 (Ind.1996) (noting that the particular circumstances of a crime can be an aggravating circumstance); see also Sherwood v. State, 702 N.E.2d 694, 699 (Ind. 1998) (observing that only one valid aggravating factor is necessary to enhance the presumptive sentence).