Court Opinion

ID: 9734548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:37:40.996035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:49.141608
License: Public Domain

FRIEDLANDER, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority's decision to reverse is dependent in part upon its conclusion that Blakely applies retroactively to this case because Boyle's ability to appeal via Post-Conviction Rule 2(1) had not been exhausted. I continue to adhere to the contrary view, as articulated in Robbins v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1196 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). For the same reasons set out in my dissenting opinion in Gutermuth v. State, 848 N.E.2d 716 (Ind.Ct.App.2006), I respectfully dissent from the majority's holding in the instant case. I would affirm the trial court.