Opinion ID: 2535625
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether gilbert's sentencing as a habitual offender under mississippi code section 99-19-83 was proper.

Text: ¶ 30. Gilbert was sentenced to life in prison as a habitual offender under Mississippi Code Section 99-19-83 (Rev.2007). Gilbert asserts two reasons in support of his claim of error regarding his sentence. First, Gilbert claims that the State's amendment to his indictment was one of substance rather than form. Second, Gilbert claims that the State's speculation as to the meanings of abbreviations contained within certain documents resulted in a failure of the State to meet its burden of proof at the sentencing hearing.
¶ 31. The question of whether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and enjoys a relatively broad standard of review. Conley v. State, 790 So.2d 773, 781 (Miss.2001) (citing Peterson v. State, 671 So.2d 647, 652 (Miss.1996)). Indictments may be amended only as to form, never substance. Evans v. State, 813 So.2d 724, 728 (Miss.2002) (quoting Mitchell v. State, 739 So.2d 402, 404 (Miss. Ct.App.1999)). An amendment regarding the habitual-offender status of an indictment is permissible, as it affects only sentencing and not substance. Burrell v. State, 726 So.2d 160, 162 (Miss.1998). ¶ 32. Gilbert's original indictment listed four offenses in the habitual-offender section: intimidating a witness, unlawful use of a phone, obstructing an officer, and attempted homicide. All convictions occurred in Wisconsin. However, Gilbert was not convicted of attempted homicide in Wisconsin, because he had pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of first-degree reckless endangerment. At the sentencing hearing in today's case, the State moved to amend the indictment to reflect the conviction of first-degree reckless endangerment, rather than attempted homicide. Gilbert's original indictment contained the following language: and upon conviction the said defendant is hereby charged under MCA § 99-19-83 to be sentenced to life imprisonment, and/or under MCA § 99-19-81 to be sentenced to the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for such felony, namely, twenty (20) years, and such sentence shall not be reduced or suspended nor shall such person be eligible for parole or probation; in that the said defendant shall, then and there have been convicted at least twice previously of a felony or federal crime upon charges separately brought and arising out of separate incidents at different times, and shall have been sentenced to and served separate terms of one (1) year or more in this state or elsewhere; and to the extent that the specifics of said convictions and sentences are known to the Grand Jury at this time, they are more particularly described as follows: ... the above specifics may be and shall be amended whether by addition, deletion, substitution, or in any other manner whatsoever as many times as necessary to correctly state the specifics of any and all convictions, including, but not limited to the above, relevant to the above charge that the defendant shall be sentenced under MCA § 99-19-83 and/or MCA § 99-19-81. ¶ 33. In Lacy v. State, 629 So.2d 591, 594 (Miss.1993), this Court found no error in the trial court's permitting an amendment to the indictment to reflect the actual crimes for which the defendant previously had been convicted. In Lacy, the defendant's original indictment listed three Nevada convictions for burglary, conspiracy to commit burglary, and attempted grand larceny. Id. The indictment was amended to reflect the actual crimes for which the defendant was convicted: attempted burglary, conspiracy to commit robbery, and attempted grand larceny. Id. This Court held that the trial court did not err in allowing these amendments, because the amendments did not deprive the defendant of fair notice or impair his ability to defend. Id. at 595. ¶ 34. Similar to Lacy, the amendment to Gilbert's indictment reflected the actual crime for which he was convicted. This amendment affects only sentencing, not the substance of Gilbert's indictment. Accordingly, the trial court did not err when it allowed the amendment.
¶ 35. The State must prove habitual-offender status beyond a reasonable doubt. Dalgo v. State, 435 So.2d 628, 630-31 (Miss.1983). The State charged Gilbert as a habitual offender under Section 99-19-83, which reads as follows: Every person convicted in this state of a felony who shall have been convicted twice previously of any felony or federal crime upon charges separately brought and arising out of separate incidents at different times and who shall have been sentenced to and served separate terms of one (1) year or more in any state and/or federal penal institution, whether in this state or elsewhere, and where any one (1) of such felonies shall have been a crime of violence shall be sentenced to life imprisonment, and such sentence shall not be reduced or suspended nor shall such person be eligible for parole or probation. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-83 (Rev.2007). ¶ 36. Gilbert claims that the State did not meet its burden of proof because it speculated as to the meaning of abbreviations in certain documents used to enhance the sentence under the habitual-offender statute. The trial court and the prosecutor discussed the meaning of some abbreviations contained in these documents during the sentencing hearing. Specifically, the trial court and prosecutor discussed whether int. meant intentional, if cond. meant conditional, and if inj. meant injury. ¶ 37. The trial court stated that it was satisfied that the State had met its burden of proof concerning the requirements of Section 99-19-83 such that Gilbert should be sentenced to life without parole as a Section 99-19-83 habitual offender. The trial court found that Gilbert previously had been convicted of at least two felonies, intimidation of a witness and reckless endangerment; that Gilbert had served one year or more for each crime; and that reckless endangerment was a crime of violence. The trial court's judgment of conviction and sentence stated that Gilbert had been: convicted at least twice previously of felony crimes in the State of Wisconsin, upon charges separately brought and arising out of separate incidents at different times, and on each said previous conviction the defendant was sentenced to and served separate terms of one (1) year or more in the State of Wisconsin penal institutions, at least one of such prior felonies also being a crime of violence. ¶ 38. We find from the record before us that the trial court did not err in finding that the State had presented sufficient evidence showing that Gilbert had met the requirements of Section 99-19-83. The discussion between the State and the trial court as to the meanings of some abbreviations in the sentencing documentation did not show that the State had failed to meet its burden of proof. As to Gilbert's conviction of first-degree reckless endangerment, the Wisconsin documents clearly reveal that Gilbert was convicted of [r]eckless endanger 1st Deg; Use of Weapon in Crime. Therefore, the trial court did not err in sentencing Gilbert as a habitual offender under Section 99-19-83. ¶ 39. Based on our discussion on this issue, we find no merit in this assignment of error.