Court Opinion

ID: 9741431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:55:40.449165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:24.055211
License: Public Domain

BARNES, Judge,
concurring.
I concur fully, but point out the specific chronology of this case. Aguilar was sentenced on June 27, 2008, and he timely initiated a direct appeal. The case was fully briefed as of May 24, 2004. Blakely was decided on June 24, 2004. We affirmed his conviction on July 9, 2004, and Aguilar filed this petition for rehearing on July 19, 2004, well within the thirty-day limit for filing a rehearing petition. See Ind. Appellate Rule 54(B).
It is clear that newly announced constitutional rules must be applied to all cases still pending on direct review when the rule was announced. See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328, 107 S.Ct. 708, 716, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987). The fact is this appeal was in our pipeline when Blakely was handed down and the rehearing petition was timely filed. Blakely was decided before our original opinion in this case was certified as final. Aguilar's direct appeal was still pending when Blakely was decided and, therefore, it must be applied here.
In another set of cireumstances, I would not be as kindly disposed to the appellant. This remand for sentencing does not open all previous aggravated sentences to collateral attack under Blakely.