Opinion ID: 2432481
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Expunged conviction

Text: The information was amended to allege, and evidence was presented to show, that Mr. Neal was previously convicted in Douglas County, Kansas, of Concealing Property Subject to a Security Interest. Mr. Neal argues the amendment to the information, made shortly before trial, was untimely. It is well settled that the State may amend an information up to a point after the jury has been sworn but before the case has been submitted to it, as long as the amendment does not change the nature or degree of the crime charged, if the accused is not surprised. Kilgore v. State, 313 Ark. 198, 852 S.W.2d 810 (1993). Mr. Neal contends the Kansas conviction was subsequently expunged and should not have been used to enhance his sentence. In making this argument, he points out the similarities in the definitions of expunge and pardon, and contends that, as we prohibit the use of a pardoned conviction to enhance a later sentence, an expunged conviction should also not be used for that purpose. Although a pardoned conviction cannot be used to enhance a later sentence, Duncan v. State, 254 Ark. 449, 494 S.W.2d 127 (1973), our cases clearly support the use of an expunged conviction to enhance a sentence as an habitual offender. Walters v. State, 286 Ark. 166, 690 S.W.2d 122 (1985); Gosnell v. State, 284 Ark. 299, 681 S.W.2d 385 (1984). Affirmed. DUDLEY, BROWN, and ROAF, JJ., dissent.