that it 'only applies if a defendant is on probation, parole, or serving a term of imprisonment at the time the other offenses were committed.'" (Citations and footnote omitted). Stated differently, our supreme court's interpretation of subsection ([d] )(1) is that "[a] defendant who has not been sentenced for offense one at the time he commits offense two does not fall under the mandatory sentences provision of the Code." Sides v. State, 490 N.E.2d 318, 320 (Ind.1986), rev'd on other grounds on reh'g, 507 N.E.2d 560 (Ind.1986); see also Groff v. State, 488 N.E.2d 711, 712 (Ind.1986) (stating where subsequent offense occurs after sentencing for a prior crime, I.C. § 35-50-1-2 applies to require mandatory consecutive terms); Hutchinson v. State, 477 N.E.2d 850, 857 (Ind.1985) (<HOLDING>)[.] #0 took We are bound by the decisions of
holding that defendant was not in custody during search of his residence holding miranda inapplicable because defendant not in custody holding term of supervised release tolled while defendant was in state custody holding consecutive sentences not required where defendant committed seeond erime while in custody awaiting trial on earlier offense holding defendant was in custody under miranda while being detained under terry