Opinion ID: 2041125
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence Habitual Offender

Text: Appellant argues that the evidence presented by the State at the habitual offender proceedings is not sufficient to prove that he is the same person named in the documents used to establish prior felony convictions. Timmons also filed a Citation to Additional Authority, claiming that the documentation presented by the State does not indicate when the alleged prior felonies were committed. We need not address his identity claim, as the evidence of the chronological sequence of the predicate felonies is not sufficient to support the habitual offender determination. We recently vacated an habitual offender determination upon grounds under circumstances similar to the case at bar. Steelman v. State, (1985), Ind., 486 N.E.2d 523. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice DeBruler stated: However, in studying the record of proceedings for the purpose of resolving this issue, we have been confronted with a fundamental defect in the proof of sequence of the prior felonies that support the habitual offender determination, and thus the thirty year enhancement of appellant's sentence. This defect is of such a nature that it renders the evidence insufficient to support that determination. Steelman, 486 N.E.2d at 525. The documents offered by the State at the habitual offender proceedings do not indicate the date on which the predicate felonies were committed. This renders the evidence insufficient to support an habitual offender determination. Writing for the majority, Justice DeBruler held that this chronological sequence must be established by the State: In Miller v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 454, 417 N.E.2d 339, this Court held: It is clear from the statute [Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8] that to sustain a sentence under it, the State must show that the defendant had been twice convicted and twice sentenced for felonies, that the commission of the second offense was subsequent to his having been sentenced upon the first and that the commission of the principal offense upon which the enhanced punishment is being sought was subsequent to his having been sentenced upon the second conviction. Miller, 417 N.E.2d at 342. In the case at bar, the State has not presented any evidence as to the dates of the commission of the alleged prior felony convictions. As a result, there is no way to discern if the alleged prior felony convictions are in their proper statutory sequence. Steelman, 486 N.E.2d at 526; See also, Clark v. State (1985), Ind., 480 N.E.2d 555, 560. There is no way to discern if Timmons' prior convictions are in the requisite statutory sequence. This is a fundamental defect which renders the evidence insufficient to support the habitual offender determination. The habitual offender determination is vacated. The cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions to resentence Ronald Leon Timmons. Williams v. State (1986), Ind. App., 494 N.E.2d 1001. The habitual offender finding is vacated and the cause remanded for a new sentencing hearing. The convictions and sentences imposed for the burglary and attempted burglary are affirmed. DeBRULER and DICKSON, JJ., concur. PIVARNIK, J., concurs and dissents with separate opinion in which GIVAN, C.J., concurs.