ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Steven T. Marbley-El, pro se Gregory F. Zoeller
Westville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Nicole M. Schuster
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
______________________________________________________________________________
In the
Indiana Supreme Court FILED
Jun 24 2010, 2:28 pm
_________________________________
No. 71S03-1006-PC-329 CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
STEVEN T. MARBLEY-EL,
Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE OF INDIANA,
Appellee (Plaintiff below).
_________________________________
Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court,
No. 71D01-0808-PC-35,
The Honorable Jane Woodward Miller, Judge
_________________________________
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 71A03-0907-PC-295
_________________________________
June 24, 2010
Per Curiam.
Steven Marbley-El pleaded guilty to a robbery he committed in October 2006. The trial
court advised him that he was giving up his right to a jury trial on the robbery charges, but did
not advise him he was giving up any right to a jury trial with respect to sentence enhancements.
Marbley-El was sentenced to six years, which is two years more than the four-year advisory
sentence for a Class C felony. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6 (2008 Repl. Vol.).
In post-conviction proceedings, Marbley-El argued the absence of a jury-trial advisement
about sentence enhancements entitled him to relief. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243
(1969) (requiring that a defendant be aware of his right to trial by jury before a trial court accepts
a guilty plea). The trial court denied relief and the Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished
memorandum decision. Marbley-El v. State, No. 71A03-0907-PC-295, slip op. (Ind. Ct. App.
Nov. 19, 2009), reh’g denied (2010).
Marbley-El asserts he was entitled to a jury trial on any factors that enhanced his
sentence beyond four years. He relies on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531
(2004); see also Smylie v. State, 823 N.E.2d 679 (Ind. 2005) (holding Indiana’s former
sentencing scheme to be unconstitutional after Blakely).
However, Blakely’s analysis does not apply here because Marbley-El committed the
robbery after Indiana’s legislature enacted the present “advisory” sentencing scheme. Courts
may now impose any sentence within the statutory range for the crime; a sentence at the high end
of the range under the present scheme is not an “enhanced sentence” for Blakely and Smylie
purposes. See, e.g., Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 489 (Ind. 2007). Therefore, Marbley-
El was not entitled to a jury determination of the factors that led to his six-year sentence, and the
trial court correctly did not advise him that he was.
2
We grant Marbley-El’s petition to transfer jurisdiction, and summarily affirm the Court
of Appeals. See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).
Shepard, C.J., and Dickson, Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.
3