context: Blakely concerns aside, this aggravator is properly used to enhance a sentence only when the court explains with specific facts why treatment is needed beyond that provided by the presumptive sentence." Appellant's Br. at 13. We find Gutermuth's non -Blakely argument dispositive and conclude that this aggravating circumstance is improper given the lack of such an explanation in this case.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 834 N.E.2d 713, 719
citation_a.parenthetical: "This factor may be used to enhance a sentence above the presumptive only if the trial court provides a specific or individualized reason as to why the defendant requires correctional treatment in excess of the presumptive term."
citation_a.sentence: See Hope v. State, 834 N.E.2d 713, 719 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (“This factor may be used to enhance a sentence above the presumptive only if the trial court provides a specific or individualized reason as to why the defendant requires correctional treatment in excess of the presumptive term.”); see also Sheron v. State, 682 N.E.2d 552, 553 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (“As a matter of jurisprudence, courts will not decide constitutional issues when a case can be decided on other grounds.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 682 N.E.2d 552, 553
citation_b.parenthetical: "As a matter of jurisprudence, courts will not decide constitutional issues when a case can be decided on other grounds."
citation_b.sentence: See Hope v. State, 834 N.E.2d 713, 719 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (“This factor may be used to enhance a sentence above the presumptive only if the trial court provides a specific or individualized reason as to why the defendant requires correctional treatment in excess of the presumptive term.”); see also Sheron v. State, 682 N.E.2d 552, 553 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (“As a matter of jurisprudence, courts will not decide constitutional issues when a case can be decided on other grounds.”).