Opinion ID: 2102042
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Habitual Offender Determination: Charging Additional Priors

Text: Best claims that the finding that he is an habitual offender is contrary to law because the State alleged and proved ineligible prior convictions. To sustain a sentence under the habitual offender statute, the State must show that the defendant has been twice convicted and twice sentenced for felonies. The commission of the second offense must have been subsequent to the sentencing on the first offense, and the commission of the principal offense on which the enhanced punishment is being sought must be subsequent to the sentencing on the second conviction. Zavesky v. State (1987), Ind., 515 N.E.2d 530. The jury in this case made specific findings that Best was convicted on each of four prior offenses: theft (1976), burglary (1976), theft (1985), and driving after being found an habitual traffic offender (1985). The evidence shows that the theft for which Best was sentenced on June 24, 1976, was committed on November 30, 1975. Consequently, Best argues that neither that theft nor the second-degree burglary for which he was sentenced on October 8, 1976, can be counted in an habitual offender determination because they overlap. He makes the same claim of overlap for the other two crimes. It is apparent, of course, that the State could have charged just one of Best's 1976 convictions and one of his 1986 convictions. Charging all four was surplusage and not grounds for reversal, particularly in light of the jury's finding that Best had been convicted of all four.