Opinion ID: 1766123
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: habitual offender sentence

Text: Nicolaou's only contention meriting discussion under this assignment is that all crimes for which he was previously convicted arose from the same incident at the same time, and therefore Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-81 did not apply. The indictment, after charging Nicolaou with the offense of the capital murder of Poole, charges him as a habitual offender, reciting each conviction and sentence of the two murders, the conviction and sentence of armed robbery, and each conviction and sentence of kidnapping, all contrary to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-81. In order to impose a sentence under this statute, the proof must show the defendant had been previously convicted twice for felonies upon charges separately brought and arising out of separate incidents at different times. [2] The State concedes in its brief that Nicolaou's contention is well taken as to the two murder convictions, and we need not address Nicolaou's contention as to these two crimes. Riddle v. State, 413 So.2d 737 (Miss. 1982). The State also points out, however, that the robbery and two kidnappings took place following the completion of, and apart and separate from the murders. The murders were of two men. Nicolaou then took one of the victim's car, and subsequently robbed a convenience store and kidnapped two females. All crimes took place on the same day, but the two murders and the kidnappings occurred at different times and different places, and clearly were two separate incidents. No error was committed in sentencing Nicolaou under this statute to life without parole. Rushing v. State, 461 So.2d 710 (Miss. 1984); Crawley v. State, 423 So.2d 128 (Miss. 1982).