Opinion ID: 1595336
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sufficiency of the Habitual Offender Portion of the Indictment.

Text: ¶ 125. The portion of the indictment charging Ross as a habitual offender was on a separate page from the rest of the indictment. Ross argues that, pursuant to Section 169 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, the indictment concluded with the words against the peace and dignity of the state, which were found on the first page of the indictment; and therefore, he was not properly charged as a habitual offender and could not be sentenced as such. Section 169 of the Mississippi Constitution reads: The style of all process shall be `The State of Mississippi' and all prosecution shall be carried on in the name and by authority of `The State of Mississippi,' and all indictments shall conclude `against the peace and dignity of the State.' Miss. Const. art. 6, § 169. However, Ross did not challenge the sufficiency of his indictment at trial. ¶ 126. Challenges to the substantive sufficiency of an indictment may not be waived and consequently may be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Berryhill, 703 So.2d 250, 254 (Miss.1997). For example, a challenge to an indictment for failure to charge the essential elements of a criminal offense affects a fundamental right, and may not be waived. Jefferson v. State, 556 So.2d 1016, 1019 (Miss.1989). However, the mere fact that a procedural requirement is located in the Constitution does not necessarily elevate it to the status of a fundamental right. Brandau v. State, 662 So.2d 1051, 1054 (Miss.1995) (failure to conclude indictment with the words against the peace and dignity of the State of Mississippi did not affect a fundamental right). We have held specifically that the inclusion of the habitual offender portion of an indictment after the words against the peace and dignity of the State of Mississippi does not affect a fundamental right and may be waived on appeal. Crawford v. State, 716 So.2d 1028, 1050-51 (Miss.1998). Ross is therefore procedurally barred from challenging his indictment. This assignment of error is without merit.