Opinion ID: 2232199
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Weatherford's Proof

Text: Weatherford was found an habitual offender based on these prior convictions: a 1960 burglary conviction, three 1965 burglary convictions, and a 1971 federal firearms conviction. His challenge in this proceeding rests on the failure of the State to demonstrate during his trial the date he committed the federal offense. If this were a direct appeal, Weatherford's challenge to the adequacy of the evidence supporting the habitual offender adjudication would be entertained and resolved based on this omission, and possibly on the interesting question of the role of the firearms conviction as surplusage in the habitual offender scheme. Because Weatherford is before us on post-conviction relief, however, he may not prevail simply by putting the State to its proof as though the case were being tried or appealed in the first instance. Instead, Weatherford must demonstrate that he was not an habitual offender under the laws of the state. As in Williams, Weatherford must demonstrate that his various convictions did not in fact occur in the required order. The evidence before the post-conviction court was hardly inconsistent with its denial of Weatherford's petition. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court. GIVAN, DICKSON and KRAHULIK, JJ., concur. DeBRULER, J., dissents with separate opinion.