¶1concurring in result.
¶2I disagree that Reyes was in a position of trust with Martin. As the majority correctly notes, Reyes' admission he and Martin were friends is insufficient, without more, to prove Reyes occupied a position of trust. However, I disagree with the majority's apparent conclusion that friends are in a position of trust each *427other just because one friend is willing to invite the other into his home. See Trus-ley v. State, 818 N.E.2d 110, 113 (Ind.Ct. App.2004) (defendant's admission she was a day care provider did not, without more, substitute for a jury's determination she was in a position of trust with respect to the victim to such an extent that a sentence enhancement was warranted).
¶3Nevertheless, I agree the trial court's consideration of this aggravating factor was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given Reyes' admissions regarding the circumstances of the crime. Accordingly, I concur in the result.