Court Opinion

ID: 9853064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:41:52.832138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:40.419476
License: Public Domain

Justice Frye
dissenting.
The question raised by the appeal in this case may be restated as follows: May a defendant whose sentence for an offense has been enhanced because he is a habitual felon have that sentence further increased because he was previously adjudged and punished as a habitual felon when the same convictions were used as the basis for both habitual felon determinations? I think not.
Defendant pled guilty to three felonies — in 1972, 1982, and 1984. In 1987, defendant pled guilty to another felony and, based on the three prior felonies, was determined to be a habitual felon and accordingly received an enhanced sentence. In 1994, defendant was found guilty of uttering a check bearing a forged endorsement — a Class I felony with a presumptive sentence of two years. Based on the same 1972, 1982, and 1984 convictions, defendant was again determined to be a habitual felon, thus enhancing the uttering offense to a Class C felony with a presumptive sentence of fifteen years. The question then is whether the court may enhance defendant’s sentence for the 1994 conviction based on the habitual felon determination in 1994 and then further increase the sentence by the fact that, based on the same 1972, 1982, and 1984 convictions, he was determined to be, and was sentenced as, a habitual felon in 1987. The majority says yes. I dissent.
*456I do not believe that the legislature, in enacting the Fair Sentencing Act, intended that the same convictions could be used as a basis for enhancing a sentence in one case (1987), then enhancing the sentence in a subsequent case (1994) while further increasing that sentence by finding as an aggravating factor that “defendant has previously been adjudicated as an habitual offender.” Our decision in Roper does not require this result. I would not expand Roper. We should draw the line somewhere.
Justice WEBB joins in this dissenting opinion.