Court Opinion

ID: 9722141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:17:40.111192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:30.866168
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Judge,
concurring in result.
I agree with the result reached in this case, but I part ways with the view espoused by the majority that Williams did not waive the Blakely issue.
Here, at no time before the trial court did Williams raise any objection-either specifically under Apprendi or generally under the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury-to the court's finding of aggravating cireumstances or imposition of an enhanced sentence. Thus, I believe that the issue has been waived. See Mitchell v. State, 730 N.E.2d 197, 201 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (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).
The United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Apprendi, upon which the defendant in Blakely objected to his "exceptional" - sentence, well - before Williams's sentencing hearing in January 2004. In my view, that the Apprendi rule was extended in Blakely is of no moment, inasmuch as Williams should have objected on Apprendi grounds and preserved this issue, just as the defendant in Blakely did.
That said, while my colleagues in this case go on to decide that Williams's sentence was proper in light of his prior erimi-nal history-waiver issue aside-I concur with the decision to affirm the trial court's judgment.