Opinion ID: 2227408
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Habitual Offender Claims

Text: Appellant claims that a number of errors occurred during the habitual offender portion of his trial. First, he alleges the court erred by permitting the State to amend the habitual offender information on the day of trial to reflect the correct date of conviction for one of the prior felonies. The amendment changed the date of conviction from November 20, 1979, to August 23, 1979. Under Ind. Code § 35-34-1-5(c) (West 1986), a charging information may be amended at any time, in respect to any defect, so long as it does not prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant. Appellant has not alleged or shown that he was prejudiced or misled in any way by the incorrect date shown in the original information. Moreover, he has not shown that the amendment was a surprise for which he could not have prepared or that the identity of the conviction was unknown to him. Haymaker v. State (1988), Ind., 528 N.E.2d 83. There was no error in allowing the amendment. Second, appellant claims that it was error to admit State's Exhibits 1A-4A because they were not properly authenticated. Appellant's objection to Exhibit 1A, fingerprint cards, is that sufficient chain of custody was not established. This claim is without merit. There is no chain of custody requirement for certified copies of public records such as fingerprint cards. Duncan v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 144, 409 N.E.2d 597. Appellant claims Exhibits 2A and 3A were not certified at all. Although no certifications appear on the copies of these documents in the record, it appears that certifications do exist and were attached to the original documents at trial. Defense counsel referred to the presence of certifications when objecting to the admission of the documents. Moreover, by comparing the cause numbers on the certifications with the cause numbers on the documents it appears that the missing certifications are present in the record, but in the wrong places. Contained in Exhibit 4A are two extra certifications which bear the cause number 3415. Exhibit 4A contains documents referring to cause number 4445. The extra certifications apparently belong with Exhibits 2A and 3A which both contain documents referring to cause number 3415. Since the record indicates that the proper certifications were present at trial, we find no error in the admission of Exhibits 2A and 3A. Appellant also claims that the certification for Exhibit 4A is incomplete because it does not contain a seal from the clerk's office as required by Ind. Code § 34-1-17-7 (West 1983). Exhibit 4A contained a certification by the clerk of Tippecanoe Circuit Court that the foregoing attached records were full, true and correct copies and that she was the legal custodian of such records. Indiana Trial Rule 44 provides alternative methods for validating official records. Earls v. State (1986), Ind., 489 N.E.2d 516. Trial Rule 44(A)(1) provides in pertinent part that a record may be evidenced by ... a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy. Such ... copy need not be accompanied by proof that such officer has the custody. Exhibit 4A was certified by the officer that had legal custody. The rule does not, by its terms, require that her authority and custody of these records be established by a statement under seal. Brackens v. State (1985), Ind., 480 N.E.2d 536. Appellant argues that even if the certification was proper, the documents attached after the certification are not certified and therefore are a nullity. In Miller v. State (1990), Ind., 563 N.E.2d 578, 584, this Court found a similar certification was sufficient where the certification spoke of foregoing documents but was stapled to the top rather to the bottom of the documents. We found that like the situation in Cavendish v. State (1986), Ind., 496 N.E.2d 46, the authenticity of the documents was not in question because of the placement of the certification sheet. Miller, 563 N.E.2d 578. In Miller nothing preceded the clerk's certification, the name of the case in the certification was the same as that on the documents, and the cause numbers matched. Id. Here, although there were documents attached to the top of the certification, the cause numbers and names matched. Third, appellant claims that the evidence presented on the habitual offender count is insufficient. To seek an enhancement under the habitual offender statute, the State must show the defendant has been twice convicted and 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 principle offense on which the enhancement is sought must be subsequent to the sentencing on the second conviction. Zavesky v. State (1987), Ind., 515 N.E.2d 530. Appellant asserts that his 1971 conviction for theft cannot serve as one of the prior felonies for two reasons: 1) because there was insufficient proof presented to the jury that this conviction was a felony, and 2) because he was sentenced to only one year for the offense, not more than one year. Although this author has argued to the contrary ( Cavendish, 496 N.E.2d 46), the prevailing rule with regard to appellant's first argument is that whether an offense is a felony is not a question of fact for the jury, but a matter of law, predetermined by the legislature and applied by the judiciary. Lee v. State (1988), Ind., 531 N.E.2d 1165; Griffin v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 107, 415 N.E.2d 60. Therefore, the State did not need to present the jury with proof that the 1971 conviction was a felony. Appellant's second argument appears to be that the 1971 conviction was not a felony because he was not sentenced to more than one year. Under the present habitual offender statute, a felony is defined as a conviction with respect to which the convicted person might have been imprisoned for more than one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-1(b) (West Supp. 1991). The determination of whether or not an offense is a felony is based on the penalty available under the law at the time of the commission of the act. Ross v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 588, 413 N.E.2d 252. Appellant was convicted in 1971 for theft of property valued at less than $100 in violation of Burns Annot.Stat. § 10-3030 (1971 Supp.). The potential penalty for that offense was one to five years. Burns Annot.Stat. § 10-3039 (1971 Supp.). Therefore, this offense qualifies as a felony under Ind. Code § 35-50-2-1(b). That the crime if committed today would not be a felony or that appellant was sentenced to only one year is consequently irrelevant. See id.; Underhill v. State (1981), Ind., 428 N.E.2d 759; Holt v. State (1984), Ind., 463 N.E.2d 466. The 1971 conviction was appropriately used as one of the prior felonies to support the habitual offender finding. Appellant also argues that the State failed to connect him to the two prior felony convictions. He is wrong. Exhibit 5A contained prison records for the 1979 battery conviction. These papers included fingerprints which were identified as McCollum's, photographs of McCollum, and other identifying information. This is sufficient to show that this Philip McCollum is the same Philip McCollum convicted of battery. Meredith v. State (1987), Ind., 503 N.E.2d 880. Exhibit 1A contained a set of fingerprint cards taken on August 3, 1970, when McCollum was arrested for burglary. The fingerprints were identified as belonging to this appellant. Appellant was charged with burglary on August 12, 1970, and on January 8, 1971, he pled guilty to theft by obtaining and exerting unauthorized control. Evidence connecting appellant to the conviction can be circumstantial. Sapp v. State (1987), Ind., 513 N.E.2d 178. This evidence sufficiently supports the inference that appellant is the same Philip McCollum earlier convicted of theft. Therefore, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the habitual offender determination. Finally, appellant contends that the court committed fundamental error by providing the jury with a verdict form which asked them to decide whether he was or was not guilty of the two underlying felonies, but did not require the jury to specifically state whether he was or was not an habitual offender pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8. For an error to be considered fundamental, the error must be blatant, and the potential for harm must be substantial and appear clearly and prospectively. Terry v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 1085, 1087 (quoting Nelson v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 218, 409 N.E.2d 637, 638). In an habitual offender proceeding, the jury's function is to determine whether the defendant is an habitual offender as defined by statute. Hensley v. State (1986), Ind., 497 N.E.2d 1053, 1057. The verdict form used here was erroneous. A proper verdict form would require the jury to find whether the defendant is an habitual offender or not. [2] We see no blatant error here, however, nor a substantial potential for harm. Therefore, use of this form was not fundamental error.