Court Opinion

ID: 9738568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:56:27.317138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:06.960412
License: Public Domain

VAIDIK, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Stringer pled guilty to the enhancement of his auto theft conviction from a Class D felony to a Class C felony based on his previous conviction for auto theft. Rather, I believe that Stringer stipulated to the admission of the certified copy of his prior conviction for auto theft and that, based on this evidence, the trial court found him guilty of the enhancement. As such, Stringer has properly brought this direct appeal, and I would affirm the trial court.
As for phase two of Stringer’s trial, the following discussion took place:
*751THE COURT: Okay. Do the parties want to—I don’t know if there’s a stipulation, or do the parties want to—
⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ * *
[STATE]: Yes, Defense counsel has stipulated.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, we did discuss that.
THE COURT: Okay. You still need to move—
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Move to incorporate prior evidence and testimony. THE COURT: Okay.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Judge, at this time we’re moving to admit the certified—copy of the certified prior Auto Theft and Receiving Stolen Parts as a Class C felony out of Court 5, the cause number being 49-G05-0205-FC-148532 of Emmanuel Stringer. It’s a public record. That’s a public record. THE COURT: Okay. And you have no objection?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, Judge, I don’t—I’ve discussed it with Mr. Stringer. I don’t have a basis for objection to that testimony.
THE COURT: Okay. And so you’re stipulating that that prior conviction is his prior conviction that it involves the same defendant; is that correct? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, it does. That’s correct.
THE COURT: Okay. And given the stipulation and the proof of the prior conviction with regard to Count III [the enhancement], Auto Theft as a C felony, I do find the defendant guilty.
Tr. p. 41-43 (emphases added). The court then set the matter for sentencing.
It is apparent that Stringer did not plead guilty to the enhancement but rather stipulated to the admission of the certified copy of his prior auto theft conviction.. Based on Stringer’s stipulation and the certified copy, the trial court found Stringer guilty of the enhancement. See Hopkins v. State, 889 N.E.2d 314 (Ind.2008) (discussing whether defendant stipulated or pled guilty to being habitual offender). Because Stringer did not plead guilty, he properly brings this direct appeal. I would therefore affirm the trial court.