concurs in part and concurs in result in part with separate opinion.
I concur in the majority's resolution of the sufficiency issue, but respectfully concur only in result as to the sentencing issue.
The majority concludes that "Blakely prohibits our trial courts from imposing a sentence greater than the presumptive based on a factor not admitted by the defendant, or submitted to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Op. at 1124. For the reasons previously set forth in my concurring in result opinion in Abney v. State, 822 N.E.2d 260 (Ind.Ct. App., 2005), I disagree that Blakely so prohibits Indiana courts from exercising their sentencing discretion. I would not therefore find any of the aggravators improper because of Blakely and would affirm the sentence. If, however, the ag-gravators were found to be improper for reasons other than Blakely, I would agree with the majority's conclusion that the multiple victim aggravator is alone suffi-client to support Altes' sentence. I therefore concur in the majority's result affirming Altes' sentence.