Opinion ID: 2080444
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: issues vii, viii & ix

Text: Defendant has consolidated these issues because they all relate to the habitual offender proceeding. Upon Issue VII, Defendant assigns error to the trial court's assertedly having failed to follow the requirements of Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(c) (Burns Supp. 1982): If the person was convicted of the felony in a jury trial, the jury shall reconvene for the sentencing hearing; if the trial was to the court, or the judgment was entered on a guilty plea, the court alone shall conduct the sentencing hearing under IC 35-4.1-4-3. Only by reference to the motion to correct errors, do we discover that Defendant contends that the jury was never reconvened, at least as counsel understands the meaning of the term as used in the statute. The record discloses that after the rendition of the verdict on the robbery count, defense counsel declined an opportunity to poll the jury. Immediately thereafter, without objection, the court informed the jury of the second portion of this trial. Defendant failed to object and thus preserved nothing for review. But, had he made an objection, it would have been properly overruled. The trial court followed the accepted practice under the statute and did nothing which could have harmed Defendant or which deprived him of the bifurcation guaranteed by due process. Upon Issue VIII, Defendant assigns error to the admission of State's Exhibit No. 69, a set of papers, properly certified under Ind.R.Tr.P. 44(A)(1), which documented Defendant's prior conviction for Uttering a Forged Instrument. He claims the exhibit was not properly certified under Ind. Code § 34-1-17-7 (Burns 1973); however, it is apparent from his failure to cite or refer to Trial Rule 44, that he is unaware that it prescribes an alternative method of authenticating official records. Collins v. State, (1981) Ind., 415 N.E.2d 46, 54, cert. denied, (1981) 451 U.S. 991, 101 S.Ct. 2331, 68 L.Ed.2d 851. Upon Issue IX, Defendant complains that the trial court failed to instruct the jury upon the meaning of the term, felony. However, he tendered no instruction upon this matter and consequently, has preserved nothing for review.