next greater felony. See Ind.Code § 35-50-2-1 (2004) (providing that the minimum sentence for a class B felony is six years). Thus, the trial court could consider Johnson’s injury. C. Consecutive Sentences Page argues that the trial court “improperly engaged in evaluating injury to the victim under a theory that Defendant could [have been] charged as a Class B felony, in order to justify consecutive sentencing.” Appellant’s Brief at 7. “In order to impose consecutive sentences, a trial court must find at least one aggravating circumstance.” Ortiz v. State, 766 N.E.2d 370, 377 (Ind.2002); see Ind.Code § 35-50-l-2(c). Because Johnson was injured and there were multiple victims, we conclude that consecutive sentences are warranted. See Sanquenetti v. State, 727 N.E.2d 437, 443 (Ind.2000) (<HOLDING>). II. The next issue is whether Page’s sentence
holding that multiple sentences for offenses under 18 usc  924c are appropriate when multiple separate acts of firearm use have occurred even if they are related to the same underlying offense holding that consecutive sentences were warranted because of the multiple separate and distinct criminal acts holding that imposition of lengthy sentences did not show prejudice where sentences were warranted by facts shown in the evidence holding the courts consecutive sentences at the statutory maximum on each count were reasonable because of the gravity of the offense holding that the district court did not err by sentencing a defendant to consecutive prison terms for seconddegree manslaughter and aggravated assault committed against two separate victims because the multiple sentences did not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendants conduct