Opinion ID: 1833605
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether the trial court erred by allowing the state to amend the indictment and charge adams as a habitual offender.

Text: ¶ 44. Adams argues that it was error for the trial court to allow the State to amend the indictment a week before trial to charge Adams as a habitual offender. The State filed a motion to amend the indictment on February 22, 1999. The State attached a copy of the proposed amended indictment to the motion. The motion was heard and granted on February 25, 1999. ¶ 45. Adams has cited no authority other than Rule 7.09 in support of his position. This being the case, this Court is under no obligation to address this issue. Jones v. State, 740 So.2d 904, 911 (Miss.1999)(citing Cavett v. State, 717 So.2d 722, 724 (Miss. 1998)). ¶ 46. Procedural bar notwithstanding, this assignment of error is without merit. 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 an 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 (emphasis added). Thus, an indictment may be amended to charge an offender as an habitual offender only if the offender is given a fair opportunity to present a defense and is not unfairly surprised. U.R.C.C.C. 7.09. ¶ 47. On February 22, 1999, the State filed a motion to amend the indictment to charge Adams as an habitual offender. Attached to the motion was the proposed amended indictment. A hearing was held on pretrial motions on February 25, 1999. When the motion was discussed regarding the proposed amended indictment, there was no objection by Adams. ¶ 48. The original indictment did not charge Adams as a habitual offender. Prior to the events in this case, Adams had pled guilty to forgery and was sentenced to five years suspended. Adams had also pled guilty to two counts of grand larceny and was sentenced to five years suspended on each of those counts. As noted by the State in the amended indictment, each sentence arose from separate incidents at different times. ¶ 49. Adams was charged with capital rape, fondling, and attempted sexual battery. The amendment to the indictment charging him as a[n] habitual offender did not affect the substance of the crime of which he was charged, but only the sentencing. Burrell v. State, 727 So.2d 761, 766 (Miss.Ct.App.1998). Burrell was charged with the crime of sale or transfer of cocaine. Id. The State moved to amend the indictment to charge Burrell as an habitual offender. Id. at 765. Burrell cited this as error, asserting the amendment was unconstitutional. Id. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that: the imposition of habitual offender status in this case did not affect any defense Burrell could have asserted to the substance of the offense of which he was accused. The substance of the crime did not change at all. Only the sentencing of his crime was affected. Id. at 766. ¶ 50. More recently, the Court of Appeals reiterated this rule in Newell v. State, 754 So.2d 1261 (Miss.Ct.App.1999). Newell was convicted of conspiracy to commit armed robbery. Id. at 1263. The State was allowed to amend the indictment to charge Newell as an habitual offender. Id. at 1267. Newell argued that he was not given notice of the previous convictions that were to be used in the indictment to enhance his sentencing. Id. He further argued that his attorney was not given time to prepare a defense. Id. The State countered, arguing that Newell failed to show how he was surprised by the amendment and how his ability to prepare a defense was affected by the amendment. Id. The Court of Appeals affirmed holding that amending the indictment to charge Newell as a[n] habitual offender did not affect the substance of the crime of which he was charged, but only the sentencing. Burrell v. State, 727 So.2d 761(¶ 9)(Miss.Ct.App.1998). Newell argues that he was not given sufficient notice. However, the record shows that he was afforded a hearing on the motion to amend. The trial court found that Newell would not be hindered in his defense by allowing the motion. Newell was given sufficient opportunity to prepare a defense. Id. at 766 (¶ 11). Accordingly, this issue is without merit. Newell, 754 So.2d at 1267. ¶ 51. The reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals in Newell is applicable to the present case. Adams was afforded a hearing on the motion to amend the indictment. However, Adams failed to make any objection to the amendment of the indictment. ¶ 52. Three days passed from the time the motion to amend was granted (February 25, 1999) to the beginning of trial (March 1, 1999). It was not necessary for Adams to prepare a defense based on the amended indictment during this time since, as stated earlier, habitual offender status did not affect the crimes with which Adams was charged. As this Court has noted, prior offenses used to charge the defendant as an habitual offender are not substantive elements of the offense charged. Swington v. State, 742 So.2d 1106, 1118 (Miss.1999). In Swington this Court went on to state: the 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. Because amendment an indictment to charge habitual offender status does not affect the crimes charged, there is no need to prepare a defense for trial. This issue, as well as being procedurally barred, is without merit.