Opinion ID: 2064895
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: In the habitual offender phase of the trial, the State presented witness, Somers, who had previously served as probation officer of the court, and who during such tenure, had interviewed Defendant after his original conviction of forgery. She prepared a pre-sentence report for the original forgery conviction. Without objection, the witness related Defendant's admissions to having been convicted of and sentenced for the two charged felonies forming the basis of the habitual offender count. It also appears that the witness identified certified copies of certain court records bearing upon the relevant convictions and sentences which may have rendered error, if any, in admitting the witnesses' testimony harmless. However, because we find no fundamental error in the admission of such evidence, we have made no attempt to determine whether or not such records were adequate for their presumed purpose. Although the customary and preferred method of proving the habitual offender status is by certified copies of the relevant records, the status can be otherwise proven. See, Driver v. State (1984), Ind., 467 N.E.2d 1186, 1187. Defendant contends that, inasmuch as he was in custody when the admissions were made to an officer of the court, who elicited them without having given prior Miranda warnings or having offered legal counsel, his right against compulsory self-incrimination and his right to counsel were impinged. It is Defendant's position that the interpretation of federal constitutional protection enunciated in Estelle v. Smith, (1981) 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 is controlling. Estelle had been ordered, sua sponte, to submit to psychiatric examination for a determination of his competence to stand trial; and after a verdict of guilty, the psychiatrist was permitted, over objection, to testify in the sentence determination phase, notwithstanding that Estelle had not received Miranda warnings. The court held that the procedural safeguards regarding advisements and the exclusionary rule are as applicable in the sentencing phase as they are in the guilt determination phase of a trial. In the case before us, however, no objection was made to the admission of the probation officer's testimony relating Defendant's admissions, hence the error may not be assigned on appeal. Barnes v. State (1971), 255 Ind. 674, 675, 266 N.E.2d 617. Defendant also urges that since the federal courts decided Estelle on constitutional grounds that differed from that argued at trial, the decision implicitly holds that the violations there articulated are fundamental in nature and not subject to appellate procedural requirements. However, such is not the case. Estelle merely demonstrates that courts of review may sometimes go to the merits of a case, notwithstanding the failure to satisfy procedural rules, if it deems such to be in the interest of justice. Error is not fundamental merely because it relates in some manner to the violation of a constitutional right. Rather, fundamental error is error such that, if not rectified, it would be a denial of fundamental due process. Johnson v. State (1979), 271 Ind. 145, 390 N.E.2d 1005. To be catagorized as fundamental error and thus to transcent our procedural requirements, the error must be blatent and the potential for harm appear clearly and prospectively. Nelson v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 218, 220, 409 N.E.2d 637, 638. Here there is no question but that Defendant was an habitual offender, as defined by our statute. Not only has this fact not been challenged, it was acknowledged by Defendant in a conference before the bench, but outside the presence of the jury, at which he offered to launch collateral attacks against the convictions. Defendant had a right to exclude the evidence now complained of, but he also had a right to forego that right. Having elected the latter, it cannot be said that he has been denied fundamental due process.