Supreme Court knocks down habitual-offender enhancement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court found a habitual-offender enhancement tacked onto the 20-year sentence of a serious violent felon was an “impermissible double enhancement.”

Anthony H. Dye was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and found to be a habitual offender after a shootout at a music studio in Elkhart on March 18, 2007. During the incident, Dye was shot twice and his 20-year-old son, Jermaine Jackson, was killed.

The state subsequently charged Dye in Elkhart Superior Court with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a SVF.

In addition, the state sought to have Dye’s sentence enhanced under the habitual-offender statute which provides that the sentence of a person convicted of a felony can be enhanced up to 30 years if he or she previously has been convicted of two unrelated felonies. To prove Dye’s habitual-offender status, the state used a 1998 conviction for possession of a handgun within 1,000 feet of a school and a 1993 forgery conviction.

Dye pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a SVF. However, he filed a motion to dismiss the habitual-offender allegation, arguing that enhancing his sentence under the habitual-offender statute would constitute an impermissible double enhancement.

Denying the motion, the trial court moved forward with a jury trial on the habitual-offender allegation. After a two-day trial, the jury found that Dye was a habitual offender. The trial court sentenced him to the maximum 20 years imprisonment on the SVF conviction, enhanced by 30 years due to his status as a habitual offender. Then the court suspended 15 years to probation, for an executed term of 35 years.

The Supreme Court found Dye’s habitual-offender enhancement violated the rule against double enhancements for two reasons. First, the SVF statute Dye was convicted under is a progressive-penalty statute. Second, the general habitual-offender statute does not include “explicit legislative direction indicating that a double enhancement is proper here.”   

Finding that the trial court erred in denying Dye’s motion, the Supreme Court vacated the 30-year enhancement. Also, the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals that an executed term of 20 years imprisonment is not inappropriate. It remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter an order sentencing Dye to an executed term of 20 years.

Justice Mark Massa dissented, writing, "The courts of this state communicated to the General Assembly what was, and was not, permissible with respect to double enhancements. Several times, the General Assembly has responded. I believe their 2001 response amending the habitual offender statute shows first that the SVF statute is not a progressive penalty statute, and second that, even if the SVF statute were still subject to the general rule against double enhancement, there is explicit legislative direction permitting an adjudicated serious violent felon to be subject to additional enhancement under the general habitual offender statute."


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.