Court Opinion

ID: 9861444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 00:02:43.898864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:29.100457
License: Public Domain

PIVARNIK, Justice,
dissenting and concurring.
I concur in this opinion in the issues decided in specifications 1 through 5, but respectfully dissent with regard to specification 6 regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to support the habitual offender determination.
I agree with the majority that in order to sustain a sentence under the habitual offender statute, the State must show the defendant had been twice convicted and twice sentenced for felonies and that the commission of the second offense was subsequent to his having been sentenced upon the first and that the commission of the principal offense, upon which the enhanced punishment is being sought, was subsequent to his having been sentenced upon the second conviction. Even though I feel the State could have done a better job by proving the actual dates of the commission of the crimes here, I think there is sufficient evidence from the facts given to infer a proper sequence of felonies here so that the trial judge was justified in entering judgment upon Defendant.
The evidence clearly shows that Defendant was convicted and sentenced for burglary in 1974. The evidence presented at the habitual offender phase of the trial was that he was convicted in 1975 and 1976 of other crimes. There are facts shown which strongly infer that these crimes were committed after the 1974 sentencing and serving of sentence by the defendant. There is no inference whatever by anyone that these crimes were or could have been committed before the conviction and sentencing of 1974.
*561In his own testimony in the guilt phase of the trial (Record Vol. V, p. 1081) Defendant testified in his own behalf that he was convicted and sentenced in Hamilton County in 1974 to a term of two to five years for burglary. He testified he served that sentence at the TYC in Derryville Youth Camp. He was then asked: "What was your next conviction after that?" and his answer was: "It would have been in '76. That was, that was the safe burglary that Gerald Mantz set me up on." He then testified further about his subsequent convictions. The evidence presented at the habitual offender phase took this same general direction. It was proved that he had in fact been convicted and sentenced and served his sentence in 1974. It was later shown that from 1975 to 1977 he was convicted and sentenced on the other felonies. Although no document states that he did in fact commit these crimes after 1974, that was the tenor of all of the documents, and the total presentation of the State, not refuted in any manner, shows that this is the case. It is clear that the present charges on which the enhanced sentence comes about were for crimes committed in 1981 and, therefore, it seems to me there is sufficient showing that there is the required sequence of these events.
I therefore dissent and would affirm the trial court in all respects.