Opinion ID: 1655965
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Amended Indictment-Habitual Status

Text: ¶ 9. It is fundamental that courts may amend indictments only to correct defects of form, however, defects of substance must be corrected by the grand jury. Evans v. State, 813 So.2d 724, 728 (Miss.2002) (quoting Mitchell v. State, 739 So.2d 402, 404 (Miss.Ct.App.1999)). It is well settled ... that a change in the indictment is permissible if it does not materially alter facts which are the essence of the offense on the face of the indictment as it originally stood or materially alter a defense to the indictment as it originally stood so as to prejudice the defendant's case. Miller v. State, 740 So.2d 858, 862 (Miss.1999). ¶ 10. Wilson argues that the trial court erred in allowing the State to amend the original indictment to charge him as a habitual offender under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-83. However, Mississippi law allows an amendment of an indictment to charge a defendant as a habitual offender even after the jury has returned a guilty verdict. Torrey v. State, 891 So.2d 188, 195 (Miss.2004). Here, Wilson was put on notice the State sought to amend the indictment months before trial. Likewise, the trial court allowed the amendment long before trial began. Rule 7.09 of the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice allows for the amendment of an indictment in order to charge an offender as a habitual offender. Rule 7.09 reads: All indictments may be amended as to form but not as to the substance of the offense charged. Indictments may also be amended to charge the defendant as an habitual offender or to elevate the level of the offense where the offense is one which is subject to enhanced punishment for subsequent offenses and the amendment is to assert prior offenses justifying such enhancement (e.g., driving under the influence, Miss.Code Ann. § 63-11-30). Amendment shall be allowed only if the defendant is afforded a fair opportunity to present a defense and is not unfairly surprised. U.R.C.C.C. 7.09. Thus, an indictment may be amended to charge an offender as a habitual offender only if the offender is given a fair opportunity to present a defense and is not unfairly surprised. Id.; Adams v. State, 772 So.2d 1010, 1021 (Miss.2000). ¶ 11. The two prior felonies charged in the original July 20, 2004, indictment were: (1) grand larceny in the Circuit Court of Warren County, Mississippi, on or about August 5, 1994, Cause no. 1171V, convicted and sentenced to serve five years, and (2) bank robbery in the United States District Court Southern District of Mississippi Western Division on or about June 21, 1999, in Cause no. 5:98cr12BrS, convicted and sentenced to serve seventy months. [1] The grand larceny was actually burglary of an automobile; however, the cause number, sentence, and the sentencing court information were correct. The revocation order on the burglary of an automobile reflected the charge was for attempted grand larceny. Wilson was provided adequate information to inform him that the State sought habitual status and to put him on notice of the conviction to be used. Here, Wilson was not unfairly surprised by the amendment. The State sought to amend the indictment months before trial. The trial court allowed the amendment months before trial. Likewise, Wilson was originally indicted as a habitual offender under Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-81. ¶ 12. Furthermore, it was not necessary for Wilson to prepare a defense based on the amended indictment because the habitual offender status did not affect the crimes with which Wilson was charged. See Adams, 772 So.2d at 1021. This Court has held, prior offenses used to charge the defendant as an [sic] habitual offender are not substantive elements of the offense charged. Swington v. State, 742 So.2d 1106, 1118 (Miss.1999) (emphasis added). In Swington, this Court went on to state: [T]he test of whether an accused is prejudiced by the amendment of an indictment or information has been said to be whether or not a defense under the indictment or information as it originally stood would be equally available after the amendment is made and whether or not any evidence [the] accused might have would be equally applicable to the indictment or information in the one form as in the other; if the answer is in the affirmative, the amendment is one of form and not of substance. Id. [2] ¶ 13. We find the trial court did not err in amending the indictment to charge Wilson as a habitual offender under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-83.