Court Opinion

ID: 9524675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:55:50.345345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:32.648239
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Justice,
concurring.
While I concur that a petition for post-conviction relief was the only method by which appellant Olinger could challenge the *312validity of the felony convictions which were the basis for the later finding that he was an habitual offender, I note the conclu-sory nature of our finding that his success in that effort leads ineluctably to vacating the habitual offender sentence. This is a question which has been litigated in Indiana in only the most tangential way, Pennington v. State (1981), Ind., 426 N.E.2d 408, and I can find only one other state in which the matter has been addressed directly. State v. Gauger (1968), 200 Kan. 563, 438 P.2d 463. Whether today's result is required by the Code or by the Constitution, or whether it is required at all, has never been directly addressed by this Court.
However, the question is not before us, as the State chose to respond to Olinger's petition by arguing that he should have challenged the predicate felonies during the habitual offender proceeding. Accordingly, I join the Court's disposition of the case.