Whether the Indiana Court of Appeals improperly applied retroactive legal standards in denying a post-conviction relief petition by failing to adhere to the law in effect at the time of the underlying criminal transgression

and undersigned Applicant’s need for additional time to prepare a Petition that will assist this Court in deciding whether to grant certiorari on a matter of substantial Public Interest. 13. This case concerns a final Judgment of an Indiana Appeals Court that Affirmed Applicant Silvers’ denial of his PCR Petition, doing so in conflict of this Honorable Court’s Precedents, to wit: failure to comply with an Indiana Rule of Appellate Procedure. 14. However, said Doctrinal Rule—that the law in effect at the time a criminal transgression is committed—is not firmly or regularly followed;8 leaving the 8 See, e.g., Dennis v. State, 908 N.E.2d 209, 211 (Ind. 2009) (A defendant's sentences are governed by the law in effect at the time of his crimes) (citing Jacobs v. State, 835 N.E.2d 485, 491 n.7 (Ind. 2005)); State v. Hernandez, 910 N.E.2d 213, 215-217 (Ind. 2009) (holding that Indiana law in effect at the time of Hernandez's crimes dictated that he was not eligible to be considered for parole absent executive clemency); Johnston v. Dobeski, 789 N.E.2d 121,