Opinion ID: 2199742
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Sufficiency of the EvidenceHabitual Offender

Text: Spurlock argues the habitual offender determination by the jury must be vacated because one of the predicate felonies is facially invalid. Spurlock's argument amounts to a collateral attack upon a prior conviction. In order to sustain such an attack on an underlying felony in the habitual offender proceeding, Spurlock must demonstrate that the documents used in his trial to prove the prior convictions on their face raised a presumption that the convictions were constitutionally infirm. Cornett v. State, 536 N.E.2d 501, 506 (Ind.1989). Where, as here, the prior conviction is based upon a guilty plea, the infirmity must affect that part of the guilty plea that constitutes the admission of guilt. Id. Spurlock attacks the validity of his guilty plea for one of the underlying convictions (theft) because he pleaded guilty without counsel. The September 15, 1981, notation on the criminal docket sheet clearly indicates that Spurlock was advised of his constitutional rights and that he waived his right to counsel. Thus, Spurlock has failed to show his guilty plea was constitutionally infirm on its face. Spurlock also challenges the State's evidence relating to a previous theft conviction. The State introduced certified copies of information charging Spurlock and the court's docket sheet, among other documents. The court's docket entry for October 14, 1981, reads in pertinent part: Court enters judgment of conviction for the offense of theft, class d Felony and sentences defendant to imprisonment for a period of two years, suspends execution of sentence on condition defendant satisfactorily complete two years supervised probation. Record at 798. In addition, Officer Robert E. Clark identified Spurlock and testified that Spurlock had been convicted of theft. This was sufficient evidence provided by the State to support the habitual offender determination. See Webster v. State, 628 N.E.2d 1212, 1214-15 (Ind.1994) (introduction of criminal docket sheet and information was sufficient to sustain habitual offender determination). Spurlock was of course free to challenge that evidence at trial and was in a position to know whether it was accurate.