Opinion ID: 2230873
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: The underlying claim made by the defendant that his sentence is illegal and voidis based on the fact that his prior convictions for burglary both occurred on January 17, 1995. The habitual-offender statute defines a habitual offender as any person convicted of a class `C' or a class `D' felony, who has twice before been convicted of any felony in a court of this or any other state, or of the United States. . . . Id. § 902.8. The State does not challenge the defendant's claim that under our case law, each offense must be complete as to a conviction and sentencing before commission of the next in order to qualify for the enhancement of penalty under a habitual offender statute. State v. Freeman, 705 N.W.2d 286, 291 (Iowa 2005). Clearly, the defendant's prior burglary convictions do not qualify as two prior convictions under this rule. The issue in this appeal, then, is not whether the defendant is a habitual offender. Based on the record before us, he is not. The issue we must address on appeal is whether the defendant can challenge his habitual-offender status for the first time on appeal. If he can, we must then decide whether, upon remand, the prosecution can introduce evidence of other prior felony convictions in support of its allegation the defendant is a habitual offender.