in any circumstance, although as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice." Id. (quoting State v. Lewis, 543 N.E.2d 1116 (Ind.1989)). The supreme court reiterated that finality and fairness are both important goals and concluded that when faced with an apparent conflict between them, it unhesitatingly chooses the latter. Id. at 901. We are faced with such a question here between finality and fairness. Another panel of this court has examined Badger's sentence and found that it could be upheld despite the illegality. We respectfully disagree and posit that the benefit Badger received from the plea agreement amounted only to a five-year sa App.1997) (<HOLDING>). We also are compelled to conclude that
holding that consecutive sentences were warranted because of the multiple separate and distinct criminal acts holding the courts consecutive sentences at the statutory maximum on each count were reasonable because of the gravity of the offense holding that imposition of lengthy sentences did not show prejudice where sentences were warranted by facts shown in the evidence holding that the federal constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply to decisions to impose consecutive sentences holding that courts are duty bound to correct sentences violating the trial courts statutory authority to issue consecutive sentences under indiana code section 355012