Opinion ID: 2436949
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Habitual Criminal Act

Text: Atkins contends his sentence was enhanced under the Habitual Criminal Act despite the fact that he has not been found guilty of violation of the act or had an opportunity to plead guilty or not guilty or otherwise to the charge of being an habitual criminal. The Habitual Criminal Act, Ark. Stat.Ann. §§ 43-2328 through 43-2330 (Repl.1977), does not define a separate offense as to which a plea must be entered. While the applicability of the act is charged in the sense that the trial court is notified of it in the information filed against the accused, no plea is required. The prosecutor may prove the prior convictions in accordance with § 43-2330, and they may then be considered in sentencing. See, e.g., Flurry v. State, 248 Ark. 722, 453 S.W.2d 402 (1970). The understandings of both the counsel for Atkins and for the state, noted at the outset of this opinion, had to do with whether the court ultimately would be asked to apply the sentence enhancement provisions of the statute. The lack of clarity of the remarks of counsel in this respect should have alerted the court to the fact that the plea agreement was not being fully described for the record. While we need not hinge our decision upon it, it should be pointed out here that the requirement of Rule 24.5 that the agreement be stated is mandatory. Zoller v. State, 282 Ark. 380, 669 S.W.2d 434 (1984). The sentence to four years in prison and the conviction of failure to appear is affirmed. The ten-year sentence and conviction of burglary as well as the plea of guilty to burglary are vacated, and the case is remanded so that the court may hear the appellant's plea to the burglary charge in proceedings not inconsistent with the rules of criminal procedure and this opinion. PURTLE, J., not participating.