Court Opinion

ID: 9741432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:55:40.452289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:24.055645
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision to grant rehearing in this case, inasmuch as Aguilar has raised the Blakely issue for the first time on rehearing. As a panel of this court observed in Carson v. State, 813 N.E.2d 1187, 1188-89 (Ind.Ct.App.2004), a defendant who fails to challenge his sentence on direct appeal has waived the issue. See also Mitchell v. State, 730 N.E.2d 197, 201 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000), trans. denied, (holding that when a defendant does not properly bring an objection to the trial court's attention so that the trial court may rule upon it at the appropriate time, he is deemed to have waived that possible error).
I would also note that the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ap-prendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), well *766before Aguilar's sentencing hearing. In my view, that the Apprendi rule was extended in Blakely is of no moment, because Aguilar should have objected on Ap-prendi grounds and preserved this issue, just as the defendant in Blakely did. For these reasons, I vote to deny Aguilar's request for rehearing.