dissenting.
What is really going on in this case is that, after years of negotiating with the Marion County Prosecutor's office, Woodford and the Prosecutor agreed to a reduction in Wood-ford's sentence from life in prison to forty years. A plea agreement to that effect (structured for procedural reasons as a petition for post-conviction relief) was filed with the trial court. There is no question that the trial court would have had discretion to accept or reject the agreement. Petty v. State (1989), Ind., 532 N.E.2d 610, 612. But, citing our new rule requiring appellate pre-approyal for filing successive petitions for post-conviction relief, we deny Woodford the opportunity to have the trial court rule on the agreement.
I believe that the language in our earlier opinion in Woodford's case was sufficient to give him an exemption from application of the new rule. Furthermore, the whole point of the new rule in non-capital cases is to weed out frivolous petitions for post-convietion relief, thereby conserving prosecutorial, trial court, and, ultimately, appellate court resources. That policy is in no way furthered when, as here, the petitioner for post-conviction relief acts with the full cooperation of the prosecutor.
I would grant the writ.
DeBRULER, J., joins.