Opinion ID: 585032
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Trial Court Properly Found Higgason a Habitual Offender.

Text: 9 Higgason argues that the jury lacked sufficient evidence to find him a habitual offender. In Indiana, a jury may make such a finding if the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the person had accumulated two prior unrelated felony convictions. Ind.Code § 35-50-2-8 (1985); Williams v. Duckworth, 738 F.2d 828, 831 (7th Cir.1984). Although habitual offender status is defined by state law, we have noted that a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to a state court finding that a person is a recidivist is cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding. Id. 10 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), establishes the standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims. Under Jackson, our inquiry is whether a rational trier of fact could have found [relevant facts] beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 324. We can only reverse a jury's findings if the defendant can establish that the record contains no evidence, regardless of how it is weighed, from which the jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [citations omitted] United States v. Dawn, 900 F.2d 1132, 1137 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 368 (1990). 11 In Higgason's case, we are convinced that a rational jury could find habitual offender status beyond a reasonable doubt. The state introduced evidence of three prior convictions: a 1970 theft conviction, a 1972 theft conviction, and a 1975 second-degree murder conviction. Contrary to Higgason's claim, the state's documentation does prove that he was the same James Higgason, Jr. who committed the three crimes. 12 As proof of the murder conviction, the state entered an indictment, sentencing order, commitment order, and prison documentation. The state also introduced fingerprints and photographs taken during Higgason's incarceration. The photographs provide a link between the James Higgason who appeared at trial and the man named in the prison documents. 13 We must assume, because Higgason did not object at trial, that the pictures depict the same man who appeared at trial. See also United States v. Nesbitt, 852 F.2d 1502, 1509 (7th Cir.1988) (the petitioner bears the burden of proving the facts relevant to a sufficiency of the evidence claim). As well as showing Higgason's face, the pictures give his prison identification number. This number corresponds to prison documentation showing that Higgason was convicted of murder. 14 To prove the thefts, the state introduced an indictment, sentencing order, and presentence face sheet for each offense. The face sheets give a date of birth, 2/21/50, which is the same birth date appearing under Higgason's prison photographs. The identical dates allow a jury to assume that the James Higgason who appeared at trial was convicted of the thefts. 15 Higgason nonetheless argues that this evidence is inadequate and cites Indiana cases which require very specific methods of proving past convictions. We are not compelled to follow these cases, as this court's function is to remedy constitutional violations, not to interpret and apply state law. Bates v. McCaughtry, 934 F.2d 99 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 318 (1991); Fagan v. Washington, 942 F.2d 1155, 1158 (7th Cir.1991). We have fulfilled this function by analyzing Higgason's case under Jackson v. Virginia. 16