because he no longer faced the revocation of his probation on another conviction. The benefit of five years does not justify upholding the plea agreement mandating a forty-year sentence to be served consecutive to the thirty-year rape sentence when it is clear that the sentences could not have been consecutive. The result is that Badger is forced to serve a total sentence of seventy years as opposed to forty years (thirty for the rape plus the ten that would remain on the murder). The fact that he might have also faced five years for the probation revocation had he not pled guilty does not persuade us that a manifest injustice has not occurred here. We reluctantly conclude that the erroneous sentence constitutes fundamental error. See Rhodes v. State, 698 N.E.2d 304, 307 (Ind.1998) (<HOLDING>); Jennings v. State, 687 N.E.2d 621, 622
holding that statutory authority to modify does not contemplate fundamental changes holding that a sentence exceeding statutory authority constitutes fundamental error holding that lack of appellate jurisdiction is fundamental error holding right to be fundamental recognizing plain or fundamental error