Opinion ID: 2251340
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Felony Determination

Text: The State's evidence during the habitual offender proceeding consisted of documents showing four different convictions, all of them for violations of federal statutes. Appellant has claimed that this evidence did not prove that the convictions were for crimes classified as felonies. Actually, the State's evidence demonstrated that Shelton had been sentenced to more than a year on one of the four convictions, which satisfies the definition of a felony for purposes of Indiana's habitual offender statute. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-1. With respect to the other three offenses, the prosecutor asked that the trial judge take judicial notice of the federal statutes upon which the convictions were based and he did so. Those statutes indicate that the offenses qualified as felonies under Ind. Code § 35-50-2-1. [1] At the close of the trial, the judge charged the jury as follows: You are instructed that the offenses alleged were felonies for purpose of the application of the Indiana Habitual Offender statute. Shelton objected to this instruction as taking away from the jury one of the ultimate facts which the State is required to prove in an habitual offender proceeding. While this author reads the habitual offender statute as indicating a legislative intent that all the elements of proof be submitted for a jury determination, [2] this Court has earlier concluded that instructions such as the one given in this case are not erroneous. Griffin v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 107, 415 N.E.2d 60. Since the evidence indicates that the unrelated offenses charged by the State were in fact felonies, Shelton's request for reversal on this issue is denied.