Opinion ID: 2196234
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of Habitual Offender Documents

Text: The defendant argues that Exhibits 22 and 23 should not have been admitted during the habitual offender phase because the documents comprising those exhibits were not properly certified. Specifically, he notes that one document was totally unauthenticated and that the other documents in Exhibits 22 and 23 do not indicate that the attesting officer had legal custody of the documents. The defendant is correct that the one document (R. 447) should not have been admitted. Although it bears the seal of the circuit court and a stamp indicating it was recorded in the official records book of Broward County, Florida, there is no attestation that would comply with either Ind. Code § 34-1-17-7 or Trial Rule 44(A)(1). However, this document was merely a judgment against the defendant for public defender fees, and its admission was harmless. The other documents in Exhibits 22 and 23 were properly attested in compliance with Trial Rule 44(A)(1), which specifically states that no proof that the attesting officer has custody of the record is required. There was no error in the admission of these documents.