Court Opinion

ID: 9638748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:52:47.546654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:09.307670
License: Public Domain

John F. Stroud, dissenting. I do not think the remarks of the trial judge constituted error because I disagree with the majority in its holding that an allegation of “two or more” prior felonies precludes the introduction of more than two prior felonies at the sentencing stage of the trial. Finch v. State, 262 Ark. 313, 556 S.W. 2d 434 (1977), relied upon by the majority, is not controlling here. In that case no allegation was made that there were any prior convictions or that the State would seek an enhancement of sentence, and it was not until after the trial had started that the State sought to amend its information and allege that the accused was an habitual offender. This court properly reversed the lower court for refusing to grant the requested continuance. In Finch, supra, the court held that the information must allege that the accused is an habitual offender and said: The purpose of this requirement is to afford appellant notice of essential elements upon which the state relies for assessment of punishment and to give him the opportunity to refute such assertions. In this case, appellant was advised six months before trial that the State would seek to prove two or more prior convictions to enhance his sentence if convicted. Certainly appellant knew better than anyone else how many times he had been convicted of a felony, but if he wanted to know if the State knew of all five of his prior convictions, he could easily have found out by filing a Bill of Particulars. I think the allegation of “two or more” prior felonies made six months before trial was sufficient notice to appellant to allow the State to attempt to prove the five alleged prior felony convictions. I would affirm the conviction.