Defendant Wayde M. Menefee brings this direct appeal challenging his January 30, 1986, convictions of burglary, a class B felony, and possession of stolen property, a class D felony, and his determination as a habitual offender. In the appeal, defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient and that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the habitual offender charge.
Issue 1-Sufficiency
Defendant contends that there was insufficient probative evidence to prove that he was present at, broke, or entered the structure; that he had the intent to commit any felony; that he had рossession of stolen property; or that he had knowledge that the subject property was stolen.
In addressing the issue of sufficiency of evidence, we will affirm the conviction if, considering оnly the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict, without weighing evidence or assessing witness credibility, a reasonable trier of fact could conсlude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Case v. State (1984), Ind.,
The evidence favorable to the verdict is that on October 3, 1985, the home of the victim was broken into and burglarized. Thе perpetrators took a safe, shotgun, briefcase, a pillowcase, and miscellaneous other items. The victim's stepson, on his way to the victim's house to pick up a baby seat frоm the garage, observed defendant and his accomplice, Robert E. Holocher (Holocher) in an aqua-green 1966 Buick at 11:85 a.m. While at the house the stepson did not notice any tire trаcks in the yard. He left the house and again saw the same car in the vicinity at 11:45 a.m. Shortly thereafter, about 12:37 p.m., Detective Foote of the Allen County Police Department was cruising the area when he observed defendant and Holocher driving the 1966 Buick. Detective Foote recognized both men and began following them since he was aware of outstanding traffic warrants on Holocher. The officer also observed a rag over the license plate. The Buick was owned by Holocher who had placed the rag over the license plate to elude рolice. As Detective Foote began to follow the car, defendant turned and looked at him, whereupon Holocher drove faster and pulled into a cul-da-sac area аnd stopped at a house. Holocher jumped from the car and approached Norman Smith, a remodeling contractor at the house. Smith *1059 observed Holocher nervously asking dirеctions. During this time, defendant exited the car and ran through a wooded area. Detective Foote pulled his car in behind the Buick and arrested Holocher. Other officers in the area began cruising the area looking for the defendant. Meanwhile defendant approached a home and requested use of the phone, explaining that his car had gone into a crеek. The female occupant of the house consented, but as defendant seemed to stay too long and, because of police cars in the area, she signalled one оf the officers and informed him a man was in her house. The officers then apprehended defendant. Defendant was not wearing a shirt or shoes. His shirt and shoes were later found in the wooded area he had crossed. While defendant was being arrested, Detective Foote and Smith observed the safe, shotgun, a briefcase, and miscellaneous items in the 1966 Buick. Papers in the briefcase bore the victim's name. The victim was contacted and later identified the items as belonging to him and taken from his home without his consent. The officers also found two pair of gloves in the car, tirе tracks in the front yard of the victim's home, the back door kicked in, and a chrome automobile ashtray in the victim's yard. There were no identifiable fingerprints at the victim's home or on the stolen items. The ashtray fit the ashtray holder in the backseat of the 1966 Buick, which was missing an ashtray.
Defendant correctly asserts that mere presence at the scene of the crime, with nothing more, is insufficiеnt evidence to sustain a conviction for participation in the crime. McGill v. State (1969),
A conviction may rest upon cireum-stantial evidence, and the unexplained possession of recently stolen property is regarded as providing substantial support for a burglary conviction. Eaton v. State (1980),
Defendant argues that he was not in personal possession of any of the stolen items when he was arrested and that the State did not prove that he knew the items were stolen. In order for possession to be actual and personal, the stolen goods need not be in the arms of the accused. If they are in a place under his control, that is sufficient. Gilley v. State (1949),
We conclude that the evidence presented to the jury, along with reasonable inferences thereon, could properly enаble a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that defendant was guilty of each charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issue 2-Motion to Dismiss Habitual Offender Charge
Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the habitual offender count for the reason that defendant was not arraigned nor advised of the charge pending against him.
*1060
Indiana law requires that a defendant be arraigned оn all charges including a habitual offender charge. Lawrence v. State (1972),
However, when a defendant proceeds to trial and fails to object to the fact that he has not been formally arraigned on a separate habitual offender charge, he waives the right to arraignment. Northern v. State (1986), Ind.,
The informations charging defendant with burglary and possession of stolen property were filed October 8, 1985. Thе habitual offender count was filed October 31, 1985, and trial commenced December 30, 1985, without defendant having: been arraigned on the habitual offender information. The jury guilty verdicts for burglary and possession of stolen property were returned December 30, 1985, at which time the proceedings were recessed and the jury was instructed to return the following day for the purpose of determining whеther or not the defendant is a habitual offender. When court resumed the next day, defense counsel orally moved to dismiss the habitual offender count "on the basis that defendant was not timely servеd with a copy of the habitual offender information," alleging that he had only received a copy of the face side of the information the previous day, which excluded the reverse side upon which the names of witnesses were endorsed. Defendant's motion to dismiss at trial did not refer to or complain of any lack of arraignment.
Similarly, we are not persuaded that defendant's alleged lack of receipt of a copy of the habitual offender count operated to deny him knowledge of the charges or opportunity to defend himself thereоn. Defendant was represented by counsel at the time the habitual offender count was filed. From that time through the setting and commencement of the bifurcated trial, the record fails to evidence any objection or surprise of defendant regarding the existence of habitual offender charges. Similarly, at the conclusion of the first phase of the trial, defendant did not manifest surрrise or make objection when the jury was informed of the habitual offender proceeding to follow. We find it significant that at no time during the trial proceedings or in his brief to this Court does defendant allege lack of actual knowledge of the pend-ency of the habitual offender charge. He complains only that he failed to timely receive a copy thereof. Even if lаcking actual knowledge, however, defendant's trial counsel had constructive knowledge of the habitual offender count from the time approximately two months before trial began.
Defendant has not demonstrated reversible error on this issue. Judgment affirmed.