Woods v. State
939 N.E.2d 676
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Woods appeals the trial court's habitual offender determination.
- June 16, 2009, Woods began one-year home detention; on August 8, 2009 he left without authorization and was charged with escape and habitual offender.
- March 11, 2010, a jury found Woods guilty of escape; he waived jury trial on the habitual offender charge.
- State's Exhibits 4 and 5 were admitted in the habitual offender phase; Exhibit 4 concerns Cause 625 (escape, Tippecanoe County, 2002) with a March 14, 2003 sentencing order lacking a judge's signature.
- Exhibit 5 contains an information in Cause 79 alleging Woods's habitual offender status based on a 2002 escape in Cause 625 and a 2004 intimidation conviction; it includes a signed sentencing order in Cause 79 referencing the habitual offender status.
- The trial court found Woods to be an habitual offender based on the combined evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there sufficient evidence of two unrelated felonies after prior sentences? | Woods argues Exhibit 4 is inadequate to prove a prior unrelated conviction due to an unsigned judgment. | Woods contends the sequence requirement is not shown by Exhibit 4 alone. | Yes; evidence including Exhibit 5's signed sentencing order proves the predicate offenses and timing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parks v. State, 921 N.E.2d 826 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (standard for sufficiency review in habitual offender cases)
- Abdullah v. State, 847 N.E.2d 1031 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (unsigned abstracts of judgment insufficient to prove prior conviction)
- Neff v. State, 888 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. 2008) (judgment references and substitutes for signed judgments discussed)