Opinion ID: 1930051
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: was bandy properly indicted on two prior convictions, at least one of which was a crime of violence?

Text: Bandy's first assignment of error is that his indictment was defective as to the charge of being a habitual offender under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-83, because it did not charge him with a previous crime of violence. The two prior convictions were indecency with a child and assault with intent to commit sodomy. The indictment did not specifically charge, and Bandy's testimony denied, that either crime was a crime of violence. To be valid, an indictment under § 99-19-83 must apprise the appellant that the State was seeking to impose a life sentence without eligibility for parole or probation. Dalgo v. State, 435 So.2d 628, 630 (Miss. 1983). The specificity required of the state in preparing such an indictment goes beyond mere form: it is part of the substance of the indictment. Akins v. State, 493 So.2d 1321, 1322 (Miss. 1986). Rule 6.04 of the Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court Practice requires that: (1) The indictment must include both the principal charge and a charge of previous convictions. The indictment must allege with particularity the nature or description of the offense constituting the previous felonies, the state or federal jurisdiction of previous conviction, and the date of judgment. The indictment in this case contained this information. Although not specifically addressed in this appeal, the initial problem with the indictment is that it contained just that. It specifies the principal charge against Bandy, then goes on to cite with specificity the other two convictions against him, without ever informing him that the State sought to sentence him as a habitual offender. The State is saved from reversible error in this case by the statement of defense counsel, during trial, when he inquired about what I have been led to believe [is] an indictment of Habitual Criminal Statute 99-19-83, life without parole. Thus, it is clear that Bandy's attorney somehow gleaned from the indictment that Bandy was being charged under § 99-19-83. Since Bandy had notice of the habitual offender charge, we do not find reversible error in the inadequacy of this indictment. However, we would admonish prosecutors to properly charge habitual offenders by reference to the correct statute in the indictment. Bandy alleges that the indictment is defective for failure to charge that either of his two prior convictions was for a crime of violence. The same situation arose in Diddlemeyer v. State, 398 So.2d 1343 (Miss. 1981), where the defendant had previously been incarcerated for inter alia, murder, grand larceny, and jail escape. The indictment did not term any of these as violent crimes; however, this Court held that the indictment was sufficient, terming murder a violent crime. Thus, the term violent crime or crime of violence need not be explicitly set out in the indictment, so long as at least one of the prior offenses named therein is recognized as a violent crime.