Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1612-CR-2791 | May 9, 2017 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

Jeremy K. Nix

Matheny, Hahn, Denman & Nix, L.L.P.

Huntington, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Christina D. Pace

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Eric D. Huffman,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

May 9, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

90A02-1612-CR-2791

Appeal from the Wells Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Kenton W. 

Kiracofe, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

90C01-1512-F4-13

Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1612-CR-2791 | May 9, 2017 Page 2 of 5

Case Summary and Issue

[1] Eric Huffman was found guilty by a jury of burglary, theft, and possession of a 

firearm. He thereafter admitted to prior convictions that established his status 

as a serious violent felon and an habitual offender. The trial court sentenced 

Huffman to twelve years for burglary, enhanced by fifteen years due to the 

habitual offender finding, to two and one-half years for theft, and to twelve 

years for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. All 

sentences were ordered to be served consecutively, resulting in a total sentence 

of forty-one and one-half years. 

[2] Huffman appeals his sentence, raising two issues, of which we find the 

following dispositive: whether the trial court erred in ordering his sentence for 

unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and his enhanced 

sentence for burglary to be served consecutively. We conclude and the State 

concedes the trial court did err because the habitual offender enhancement to 

the burglary sentence and the serious violent felon status are based on the same 

prior conviction, and consecutive sentences on those two counts are an 

impermissible double enhancement. We therefore reverse and remand to the 

trial court to correct Huffman’s sentence.

1

 

1 Huffman’s second appellate issue is whether his forty-one and one-half-year sentence is inappropriate. 

Because we reverse this sentence, we need not address this issue.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1612-CR-2791 | May 9, 2017 Page 3 of 5

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Based on an incident occurring on December 28, 2015, the State charged 

Huffman with burglary, a Level 4 felony; theft of a firearm, a Level 6 felony; 

and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Level 4 

felony. The information for unlawful possession alleged Huffman was a serious 

violent felon due to a previous conviction for escape, a Class C felony, in cause 

number 05C01-1212-FC-452. The State also alleged Huffman was an habitual 

offender based on prior convictions for theft in cause number 05C01-0908-FB43 and escape in cause number 05C01-1212-FC-452.

[4] A jury found Huffman guilty of burglary, theft, and possession of a firearm. 

Huffman then admitted to having prior convictions for escape and theft, 

establishing his status as an habitual offender and a serious violent felon. The 

trial court sentenced Huffman to the maximum term of twelve years for 

burglary, enhanced by fifteen years for the habitual offender finding; the 

maximum term of two and one-half years for theft; and the maximum term of 

twelve years for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. The 

trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively, for a total sentence 

of forty-one and one-half years.

Discussion and Decision

[5] The general rule regarding multiple sentence enhancements is that the trial 

court cannot impose a double enhancement absent express authority from the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1612-CR-2791 | May 9, 2017 Page 4 of 5

legislature. Nicoson v. State, 938 N.E.2d 660, 663 (Ind. 2010). Whether a 

defendant has been subjected to an improper double enhancement of his 

sentence is a matter of law that we review de novo. Schnepp v. State, 768 N.E.2d 

1002, 1004 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. 

[6] Huffman contends the trial court erred in ordering his burglary sentence—

enhanced by the habitual offender finding—and his unlawful possession of a 

firearm by a serious violent felon sentence to be served consecutively because 

the same prior conviction was used to establish his status as both an habitual 

offender and a serious violent felon. In Sweatt v. State, 887 N.E.2d 81 (Ind.

2008), our supreme court confronted virtually the same scenario. The 

defendant in Sweatt was convicted of burglary and unlawful possession of a 

firearm by a serious violent felon. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 

twenty years on each count and enhanced the burglary count by thirty years due 

to an habitual offender finding. The defendant argued the trial court erred by 

using the same prior conviction to sentence him as an habitual offender and to 

convict him of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. The 

court held using a single prior felony conviction as the basis for a serious violent 

felon count and also as grounds for an habitual offender finding does not by 

itself create a double enhancement. Id. at 84. The trial court may avoid a 

double enhancement problem in that situation by attaching the habitual 

enhancement to an offense other than the serious violent felon count so the 

enhancements operate on different counts. Id. However, “when counts are 

ordered served consecutively this is a distinction without a difference” because 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1612-CR-2791 | May 9, 2017 Page 5 of 5

“where separate counts are enhanced based on the same prior felony 

conviction, ordering the sentences to run consecutively has the same effect as if 

the enhancements both applied to the same count.” Id. 

[7] The State concedes that Sweatt dictates Huffman’s sentence in this case is 

improper. See Brief of Appellee at 11-12. We agree. The finding that Huffman 

was an habitual offender was based in part on his prior escape conviction; his 

status as a serious violent felon was based on that same escape conviction. 

Because the enhancements of two separate counts were based on the same prior 

conviction, ordering the sentences to be served consecutively constitutes an 

improper double enhancement. 

Conclusion

[8] We reverse Huffman’s sentence and remand to the trial court to resentence 

Huffman to concurrent terms on the burglary and unlawful possession counts 

so as to alleviate the double enhancement.

[9] Reversed and remanded.

Vaidik, C.J., and Bailey, J., concur.