severe enough injury to sustain his conviction because, as a matter of law, a tooth is not a bodily member or organ within the definition of the aggravated battery statute. A person who knowingly or intentionally inflicts injury on a person that creates a substantial risk of death or causes (1) serious permanent disfigurement or (2) protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ commits class B felony aggravated battery. I.C. § 35-42-2-1.5. In Neville v. State, we recognized that “there is no statutory definition for the word ‘protracted.’” 802 N.E.2d 516, 518 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). Consequently, we turned to the rules of statutory interpretation to determine and give effect to the intent of the legislature, and we ultimately held that the plain meaning pp.1999) (<HOLDING>); Lenzy v. State, 689 S.W.2d 305, 310
holding that the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for aggravated battery when the bodily member that is lost or rendered useless in the battery is a tooth holding that it was a double jeopardy violation to convict and sentence for both dui with serious bodily injury and driving without a valid license with serious bodily injury based on an injury to a single victim holding that battery is an inherently included offense of aggravated battery holding that aggravated battery of peace officer encompasses both insulting or provoking contact and battery resulting in bodily harm holding that tooth was a member and loss of tooth consti tuted serious bodily injury for purposes of aggravated battery statute