Eric D. Huffman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 9, 2017
• Docket: 90A02-1612-CR-2791
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), May 09 2017, 9:56 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Jeremy K. Nix Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Matheny, Hahn, Denman & Nix, L.L.P. Attorney General of Indiana Huntington, Indiana Christina D. Pace Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Eric D. Huffman, May 9, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 90A02-1612-CR-2791 v. Appeal from the Wells Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Kenton W. Appellee-Plaintiff. Kiracofe, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 90C01-1512-F4-13

Robb, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1612-CR-2791 | May 9, 2017 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary and Issue [1] Eric Huffman was found guilty by a jury of burglary, theft, and possession of a

firearm. He thereafter admitted to prior convictions that established his status

as a serious violent felon and an habitual offender. The trial court sentenced

Huffman to twelve years for burglary, enhanced by fifteen years due to the

habitual offender finding, to two and one-half years for theft, and to twelve

years for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. All

sentences were ordered to be served consecutively, resulting in a total sentence

of forty-one and one-half years.

[2] Huffman appeals his sentence, raising two issues, of which we find the

following dispositive: whether the trial court erred in ordering his sentence for

unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and his enhanced

sentence for burglary to be served consecutively. We conclude and the State

concedes the trial court did err because the habitual offender enhancement to

the burglary sentence and the serious violent felon status are based on the same

prior conviction, and consecutive sentences on those two counts are an

impermissible double enhancement. We therefore reverse and remand to the

trial court to correct Huffman’s sentence.1

1 Huffman’s second appellate issue is whether his forty-one and one-half-year sentence is inappropriate. Because we reverse this sentence, we need not address this issue.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1612-CR-2791 | May 9, 2017 Page 2 of 5 Facts and Procedural History [3] Based on an incident occurring on December 28, 2015, the State charged

Huffman with burglary, a Level 4 felony; theft of a firearm, a Level 6 felony;

and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Level 4

felony. The information for unlawful possession alleged Huffman was a serious

violent felon due to a previous conviction for escape, a Class C felony, in cause

number 05C01-1212-FC-452. The State also alleged Huffman was an habitual

offender based on prior convictions for theft in cause number 05C01-0908-FB-

43 and escape in cause number 05C01-1212-FC-452.

[4] A jury found Huffman guilty of burglary, theft, and possession of a firearm.

Huffman then admitted to having prior convictions for escape and theft,

establishing his status as an habitual offender and a serious violent felon. The

trial court sentenced Huffman to the maximum term of twelve years for

burglary, enhanced by fifteen years for the habitual offender finding; the

maximum term of two and one-half years for theft; and the maximum term of

twelve years for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. The

trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively, for a total sentence

Discussion and Decision [5] The general rule regarding multiple sentence enhancements is that the trial

court cannot impose a double enhancement absent express authority from the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1612-CR-2791 | May 9, 2017 Page 3 of 5 legislature. Nicoson v. State, 938 N.E.2d 660, 663 (Ind. 2010). Whether a

defendant has been subjected to an improper double enhancement of his

sentence is a matter of law that we review de novo. Schnepp v. State, 768 N.E.2d

1002, 1004 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied.

[6] Huffman contends the trial court erred in ordering his burglary sentence—

enhanced by the habitual offender finding—and his unlawful possession of a

firearm by a serious violent felon sentence to be served consecutively because

the same prior conviction was used to establish his status as both an habitual

offender and a serious violent felon. In Sweatt v. State, 887 N.E.2d 81 (Ind.

2008), our supreme court confronted virtually the same scenario. The

defendant in Sweatt was convicted of burglary and unlawful possession of a

firearm by a serious violent felon. The trial court sentenced the defendant to

twenty years on each count and enhanced the burglary count by thirty years due

to an habitual offender finding. The defendant argued the trial court erred by

using the same prior conviction to sentence him as an habitual offender and to

convict him of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. The

court held using a single prior felony conviction as the basis for a serious violent

felon count and also as grounds for an habitual offender finding does not by

itself create a double enhancement. Id. at 84. The trial court may avoid a

double enhancement problem in that situation by attaching the habitual

enhancement to an offense other than the serious violent felon count so the

enhancements operate on different counts. Id. However, “when counts are

ordered served consecutively this is a distinction without a difference” because

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1612-CR-2791 | May 9, 2017 Page 4 of 5 “where separate counts are enhanced based on the same prior felony

conviction, ordering the sentences to run consecutively has the same effect as if

the enhancements both applied to the same count.” Id.

[7] The State concedes that Sweatt dictates Huffman’s sentence in this case is

improper. See Brief of Appellee at 11-12. We agree. The finding that Huffman

was an habitual offender was based in part on his prior escape conviction; his

status as a serious violent felon was based on that same escape conviction.

Because the enhancements of two separate counts were based on the same prior

conviction, ordering the sentences to be served consecutively constitutes an

improper double enhancement.

Conclusion [8] We reverse Huffman’s sentence and remand to the trial court to resentence

Huffman to concurrent terms on the burglary and unlawful possession counts

so as to alleviate the double enhancement.

[9] Reversed and remanded.

Vaidik, C.J., and Bailey, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 90A02-1612-CR-2791 | May 9, 2017 Page 5 of 5