Court Opinion

ID: 9740098
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:27:50.911232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:16.217547
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority acknowledges that one of the three felony convictions used to support the habitual offender determination was ineligible The majority finds that "when more than two prior convictions are alleged and any two of those convictions conform to the statutory requirements, the fact that additional convictions do not so conform is not grounds for reversal." Hensley v. State (1986), Ind., 497 N.E.2d 1053, cited as precedent by the majority, is not supportive of this proposition.
Miller v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 454, 417 N.E.2d 339 is stare decisis on this issue. Miller provides that when proof of more than two "prior unrelated felony convie-tions" is presented, and one of those alleged is determined to be ineligible, it cannot be discerned which convictions were relied upon by the jury and therefore the habitual offender determination cannot stand. I consequently dissent on this issue.