Opinion ID: 2051477
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: issues

Text: Defendant argues that the habitual offender charge should have been dismissed because he had not been adequately notified of the habitual offender hearing. On May 26, 1981, the State filed its Notice of Habitual Offender Status. Defendant was convicted of theft, robbery, and criminal confinement on September 25, 1981. The record disclosed that the court scheduled sentencing for October 13, 1981 and then, at Defendant's request, rescheduled the proceeding for October 21, 1981. Although Defendant was apparently aware that the habitual offender portion of the trial would be held at that time, he claims that specific notice of the time and date of the habitual offender hearing was not set out in the record. His argument appears to be that the use of the word sentencing rather than habitual offender hearing constituted inadequate notice. His argument is without merit. The habitual offender statute, Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8, refers to the proceeding as a sentencing hearing. Defendant had a right to reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the habitual offender claim. McConnell v. State, (1982) Ind., 436 N.E.2d 1097, 1102; Barnett v. State, (1981) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 625, 626. He did have adequate notice, and in addition, even though the court afforded him the opportunity to seek a continuance, he declined to do so. He conceded that he was prepared to defend against the habitual offender claim, and he has failed to show that he was harmed, in any way, by the phrasing of the court's minute entry.