Opinion ID: 853534
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Late Habitual Offender Filing

Text: Williams asserts that the trial court erred in allowing the State to file a late habitual offender request, after finding that the tardiness was for good cause. Here, the trial court found good cause because the State was conducting plea negotiations with Williams up until the date the habitual offender information was filed. The trial court also found that sufficient time existed for Williams to prepare for trial. The State filed the information on September 9, 1998, and Williams' trial was set for trial to begin on October 27, 1998. Thus, Williams had well over a month to prepare to defend this charge. Generally, an amendment of an indictment or information to include an habitual offender charge under Ind.Code § 35-50-2-8 must be made no later than ten days after the omnibus date. Upon a showing of good cause, however, the court may permit the filing of an habitual offender charge at any time before the commencement of trial. Ind.Code Ann. § 35-34-1-5(e) (West 1998). The omnibus date for the case at bar was May 11, 1998. On September 9, 1998, the State filed an habitual offender information for the first time. Thus, Ind.Code § 35-34-1-5(e) governs. Haymaker v. State, 667 N.E.2d 1113, 1114 (Ind.1996). [5] We held in Daniel v. State, 526 N.E.2d 1157 (Ind.1988), that once a trial court permits a tardy habitual filing, an appellant must have moved for a continuance in order to preserve the propriety of the trial court's order for appeal. We reiterated this rule in Haymaker, also noting that a pending motion for speedy trial would not excuse a defendant's failure to seek a postponement. Haymaker, 667 N.E.2d at 1114. As Justice Selby reminded us then, there is no requirement that the habitual offender phase of a criminal proceeding be conducted immediately following the guilt-innocence phase. Id. A defendant can seek more time to prepare for the habitual question and still proceed on schedule for a speedy trial of the main charge. The Court of Appeals recently followed Daniel and Haymaker in Mitchell v. State, 712 N.E.2d 1050 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), noting its disagreement with the contrary decision in Attebury v. State, 703 N.E.2d 175 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (no reason to impose this requirement on defendant who is seeking speedy trial). On this point of appellate practice, Attebury is disapproved. [6] Williams' claim has not been preserved.