SMITH v. STATE (2020)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] In April of 2020, the trial court amended its sentencing order, sentencing Jamal Smith to thirty years of incarceration with two years suspended for his Level 2 felony dealing-in-a-narcotic-drug conviction, and scheduled a jury trial for July 30, 2020, regarding the habitual-offender allegation against Smith. Prior to trial, Smith appealed his sentence, and the trial court cancelled the habitual-offender jury trial. Because we conclude that Smith is not appealing from a final judgment, we dismiss his appeal.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 28, 2019, following a bench trial, Smith was convicted of Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug, Level 3 felony narcotic-drug possession, and Class B misdemeanor marijuana possession. The trial court also found Smith to be a habitual offender. On March 27, 2019, the trial court sentenced Smith to thirty years of incarceration with ten years suspended for his conviction for dealing in a narcotic drug and enhanced that sentence by twenty years based on its finding that Smith is a habitual offender. The trial court also sentenced Smith to one hundred and eighty days for his marijuana-possession conviction, to be served concurrently with his dealing-in-a-narcotic-drug conviction. On January 28, 2020, we affirmed Smith's convictions but reversed the trial court's habitual-offender finding, after concluding that Smith had not waived his right to a jury trial on the habitual-offender allegation. In doing so, we remanded the case for the State to decide whether to pursue the habitual-offender enhancement. On April 23, 2020, the Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer.

[3] On April 28, 2020, the trial court vacated the habitual-offender finding and entered an amended-sentencing order, sentencing Smith to thirty years of incarceration with ten years suspended for his Level 2 felony dealing-in-a-narcotic-drug conviction and one hundred and eighty days for his Class B misdemeanor marijuana-possession conviction, to be served concurrently. On April 28, 2020, the trial court again entered an amended-sentencing order, sentencing Smith to thirty years of incarceration with two years suspended for his Level 2 felony dealing-in-a-narcotic-drug conviction. On May 4, 2020, the State notified the trial court that it intended to pursue the habitual-offender allegation against Smith, and the trial court scheduled a jury trial for July 30, 2020. On May 26, 2020, however, Smith initiated this appeal, and, as a result, the trial court cancelled the jury trial.

Discussion and Decision

[4] Smith contends that the trial court (1) wrongfully denied him a hearing on his revised sentence for his Level 2 felony dealing-in-a-narcotic-drug conviction, (2) imposed a vindictive sentence, and (3) failed to make a record that stated its reasons for imposing a more severe sentence on remand. We conclude, however, that Smith's contentions are not ripe for appellate review. A judgment is final and appealable if “it disposes of all claims as to all parties.” Ind. Appellate Rule 2(H)(1). In criminal cases, sentencing is a final judgment. Terrell v. State, 390 N.E.2d 208, 209 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979). In criminal cases where the defendant is alleged to be a habitual offender, “[a] habitual offender finding does not constitute a separate crime nor does it result in a separate sentence[,]” but, rather, “it results in a sentence enhancement imposed upon the conviction of a subsequent felony.” Howard v. State, 873 N.E.2d 685, 689 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Thus, a habitual offender ultimately receives one sentence, consisting “of two components—the sentence for the underlying conviction and the habitual offender enhancement.” Id. at 690.

[5] In this matter, the trial court amended Smith's sentence for his Level 2 felony dealing-in-a-narcotic-drug conviction and set the habitual-offender allegation for jury trial on July 30, 2020. While Smith raises numerous arguments regarding the trial court's decision to amend his original sentence for his dealing-in-a-narcotic-drug conviction, those arguments are for another day. Smith's sentence for his dealing-in-a-narcotic-drug conviction is but only one component of his sentence, and until the habitual-offender allegation against him has been disposed of, Smith's sentence is not an appealable final judgment. We therefore dismiss Smith's appeal.

[6] Appeal dismissed.

Bradford, Chief Judge.

Najam, J., and Mathias, J., concur.