Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1512-CR-2370 | September 21, 2016 Page 1 of 5

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Richard Walker

Anderson, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Monika Prekopa Talbot

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jeffrey K. Mitchell,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

September 21, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

48A02-1512-CR-2370

Appeal from the Madison Circuit 

Court

The Honorable David Happe, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

48C04-1410-F3-1878

Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1512-CR-2370 | September 21, 2016 Page 2 of 5

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

[1] Appellant-Defendant, Jeffrey K. Mitchell (Mitchell), appeals his conviction for 

criminal confinement resulting in serious bodily injury, a Level 3 felony, Ind. 

Code § 35-42-3-3(a), and his adjudication as a habitual offender, I.C. § 35-50-2-

8(a).

[2] We affirm.

ISSUE

[3] Mitchell raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as follows: Whether the 

State presented sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain 

Mitchell’s habitual offender adjudication. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[4] On October 21, 2014, the State filed an Information, charging Mitchell with 

Count I, battery resulting in serious bodily injury, a Level 5 felony; Count II, 

criminal confinement, a Level 3 felony, and Count III, invasion of privacy, a 

Class A misdemeanor. On November 16, 2015, the State amended the 

Information by adding Count IV, a habitual offender enhancement. The 

habitual offender allegation included three prior unrelated felonies: a Class C 

felony battery under Cause No. 48D03-8811-CF-139, a Class C felony escape 

under Cause No. 48D03-9004-CF-59 (Cause 59), and a Class D felony criminal 

confinement under Cause No. 48D03-0109-DF-307 (Cause 307). With respect 

to the escape conviction in Cause 59, the State alleged that the offense occurred 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1512-CR-2370 | September 21, 2016 Page 3 of 5

on April 27, 1990, with a subsequent conviction and sentencing on April 7, 

1997. 

[5] On December 3, 2015, the State filed a second amendment to the Information 

by amending the habitual offender Information. The amended habitual 

offender Information included only two of the previous three predicate offenses: 

the escape conviction in Cause 59 and the criminal confinement conviction 

under Cause 307.

[6] On December 1 through December 3, 2015, the trial court conducted a 

bifurcated jury trial. During Phase I of the jury trial, the jury found Mitchell 

guilty as charged on Counts I-III. In Phase II, the State introduced into 

evidence Exhibits supporting the predicate offenses of the amended habitual 

offender Information. Specifically, the State offered certified copies of the 

charging Information and sentencing order for the escape conviction under 

Cause 59, as well as fingerprints. The sentencing date for the escape conviction 

was listed as April 7, 1997. With respect to the criminal confinement 

conviction under Cause 307, the State introduced the charging Information, the 

amended charging Information, the sentencing order, the Chronological Case 

Summary, and two mugshots, as well as fingerprints. Mitchell offered no 

evidence in Phase II and did not give a closing statement. At the close of the 

evidence in Phase II, the jury found Mitchell guilty of being a habitual offender.

[7] On December 17, 2015, the trial court sentenced Mitchell to concurrent terms 

of sixteen years’ incarceration for Count I and one year for Count III, as well as 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1512-CR-2370 | September 21, 2016 Page 4 of 5

a separate twenty year consecutive sentence for the habitual offender 

adjudication. On July 3, 2016, the trial court amended its sentencing order and 

merged Count I into Count II. The trial court sentenced Mitchell to sixteen 

years’ incarceration on Count II, enhanced by twenty years due to the habitual 

offender adjudication, and a concurrent one-year sentence on Count III.

[8] Mitchell now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. 

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

[9] Mitchell contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence beyond a 

reasonable doubt to sustain Mitchell’s habitual offender adjudication based on 

the escape conviction under Cause 59 because this conviction had been vacated 

on appeal. 

[10] The standard of review for the sufficiency of a habitual offender enhancement is 

the same as for any other sufficiency claim. Woods v. State, 939 N.E.2d 676, 677 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. Accordingly, a person is a habitual offender 

if the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he has two prior, unrelated 

felony convictions. I.C. § 35-50-2-8. To support a habitual offender finding, (1) 

the prior unrelated felony must be committed after sentencing for the first prior 

unrelated felony conviction; and (2) the offense for which the State seeks to 

have the person sentenced as a habitual offender must be committed after 

sentencing for the second prior unrelated felony conviction. I.C. § 35-50-2-8(f). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1512-CR-2370 | September 21, 2016 Page 5 of 5

[11] We agree with Mitchell that his escape conviction in Cause 59 was reversed by 

this court in 1999 because we vacated his plea agreement for the escape charge; 

however, we also instructed the State to “retry Mitchell on the . . . escape 

[Count].” (Appellant’s App. p. 308). Accordingly, on October 21, 1999, the 

State recharged Mitchell with the escape offense, to which he pled guilty on 

November 27, 2000. That same day, the trial court sentenced him to eight 

years’ imprisonment, enhanced by twelve years based on a habitual offender 

adjudication. 

[12] Although the sentencing date with respect to Mitchell’s prior escape conviction 

is incorrect in the State’s habitual offender charging Information, as amended, 

Mitchell did not object. Therefore, as Mitchell failed to preserve this error for 

our review, it is now waived. See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 712 N.E.2d 986, 988 

(Ind. 1999) (the defendant is limited on appeal to the grounds advanced at the 

trial court and cannot raise new grounds for the first time on appeal). We 

conclude that the State’s evidence in Phase II of the bifurcated jury trial was 

sufficient to establish Mitchell’s habitual offender adjudication.

CONCLUSION

[13] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence 

beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain Mitchell’s habitual offender adjudication

[14] Affirmed.

[15] Bailey, J. and Barnes, J. concur