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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT