Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Baysinger v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided October 13, 2006No. 01A02-0512-CR-1178Published

1ConcurrenceVaidik, Judge

While I concur in the result reached by the majority, I cannot agree that Blakely v. Washington should apply retroactively to Baysinger's case under Post-Conviction Rule 2(1). In his brief, Baysinger seizes on that portion of Rule 2(1) providing that "notice of appeal shall be treated for all purposes as if filed within the prescribed period." I believe that this language applies only to the procedural treatment of the notice of appeal and should not be manipulated as a vehicle to reach the substantive issues addressed in the appeal itself.

Our Supreme Court's ruling in Fosha v. State, 747…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Griffith v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Richardson v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Fosha v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Gutermuth v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2006
  5. Robbins v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API