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. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  2. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

  3. This outbreak illustrates the absurdity of the extreme positions taken by today's liberalism, specifically individualism and the modern cult of endless personal "freedom." Ebola reminds us that at some point the person's own "freedom" to do this and that comes into contact with the needs of the common good and "freedom" must be curtailed. This is not rocket science, except, today there is nonstop propaganda elevating individual preferences over the common good, so some pundits have a hard time fathoming the obvious necessity of quarantine in some situations....or even NATIONAL BORDERS...propagandists have also amazingly used this as another chance to accuse Western nations of "racism" which is preposterous and offensive. So one the one hand the idolatry of individualism has to stop and on the other hand facts people don't like that intersect with race-- remain facts nonetheless. People who respond to facts over propaganda do better in the long run. We call it Truth. Sometimes it seems hard to find.

  4. It would be hard not to feel the Kramers' anguish. But Catholic Charities, by definition, performed due diligence and held to the statutory standard of care. No good can come from punishing them for doing their duty. Should Indiana wish to change its laws regarding adoption agreements and or putative fathers, the place for that is the legislature and can only apply to future cases. We do not apply new laws to past actions, as the Kramers seem intent on doing, to no helpful end.

  5. I am saddened to hear about the loss of Zeff Weiss. He was an outstanding member of the Indianapolis legal community. My thoughts are with his family.

ADVERTISEMENT