ILNews

First impression for habitual offender statute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In an issue of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals had to decide whether a defendant's prior conviction for conspiracy to deal in cocaine qualified as a conviction for dealing in cocaine under the state's habitual offender statute. The appellate court concluded today the prior conviction for conspiracy to commit dealing is a prior conviction for dealing in cocaine for purposes of Section 8 of the statute.

In Myron Owens v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0811-CR-1052, Myron Owens appealed his convictions of felony dealing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a youth center program and felony obstruction of justice. He also appealed whether his prior convictions were sufficient to support his habitual offender determination.

Owens was arrested following a drug buy arranged by police with a confidential informant. The sale happened within 1,000 feet of a church day care center. He was also convicted of felony possession cocaine and misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and sentenced to 80 years.

The Court of Appeals found sufficient evidence to support both his conviction in dealing in cocaine within 1,000 feet of the youth program center and obstruction of justice when he attempted to eat the money used during the drug buy.

In terms of his habitual offender enhancement, Owens claimed his instant dealing offense isn't listed in Indiana Code Section 35-50-2(b)(4) and that he hasn't accrued two unrelated dealing convictions. Owens' instant conviction for dealing isn't delineated in the subsection. The habitual offender statute states a prior conviction for dealing or possession of an illegal drug doesn't count for habitual offender purposes if the crime wasn't listed in Section 2(b)(4) and the defendant has less than two prior dealing convictions.

The panel considered whether Owens' conspiracy to deal in cocaine conviction in 2004, combined with his prior convictions of dealing in cocaine and carrying a handgun without a license, shows he had three prior felony convictions.

"The question presented here is whether Owens's prior conviction for conspiracy to deal in cocaine qualifies as a conviction for 'dealing in cocaine' under Section 8(d)(3)(C)(ii)," wrote Judge Paul Mathias.

In order to have convicted Owens of conspiracy to deal in cocaine, the state had to prove he actually dealt in cocaine, and under these particular facts and circumstances, Owens' prior conviction for conspiracy to commit dealing is, for purposes of Section 8, a prior conviction for dealing in cocaine, wrote the judge.

"Because Owens had two prior convictions for dealing in cocaine, the trial court could properly apply the habitual offender enhancement to the sentence imposed upon Owens's instant dealing conviction," he wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT