Arnold Mauricio, Jr., Appellant-Petitioner v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Respondent (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] The State filed two criminal cases against Arnold Mauricio, Jr.: Cause No. 02C01-1509-F6-816 and Cause No. 02C01-1511-F6-1142. In both cases, Mauricio pled guilty to Level 6 felony operating while intoxicated (OWI) and admitted being a habitual vehicular substance offender (HVSO) based on prior convictions. In both cases, Mauricio was sentenced to two years for the OWI, with one year executed and one year suspended to probation, and an eight-year HVSO enhancement, also suspended to probation. And in both cases, the trial court's sentencing judgment provided that the HVSO enhancement would be “consecutive” to the OWI sentence. Appellee's App. Vol. 2 pp. 58, 62. So, in each case, Mauricio received an aggregate sentence of ten years, with one year executed and nine years suspended to probation.

[2] Mauricio later petitioned for post-conviction relief as to both cases, claiming his sentences were illegal. Specifically, he argued that (1) an HVSO enhancement cannot be consecutive to the sentence for the underlying offense and (2) as a result, his sentence in each case was capped at eight years, the statutory maximum for an HVSO enhancement. The post-conviction court denied the petitions.

[3] Mauricio now appeals, raising the same arguments. The first is correct; the second is not. The HVSO statute provides, in relevant part:

The court shall sentence a person found to be a habitual vehicular substance offender to an additional fixed term of at least one (1) year but not more than eight (8) years of imprisonment, to be added to the term of imprisonment imposed under IC 35-50-2 [the felony sentencing statutes] or IC 35-50-3 [the misdemeanor sentencing statutes].

Ind. Code § 9-30-15.5-2(d). In applying this statute, we have explained that an HVSO finding, like a general habitual-offender finding, is not a separate conviction and does not result in a separate sentence that can be consecutive to the sentence for the underlying offense. Weekly v. State, 105 N.E.3d 1133, 1139 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. Rather, the finding results in the enhancement of the sentence for the underlying offense. Id. This isn't just semantics; it “is necessary to avoid potential double jeopardy and Eighth Amendment problems.” Jackson v. State, 105 N.E.3d 1081, 1086 (Ind. 2018), reh'g denied. The post-conviction court erred by denying the part of Mauricio's petitions that challenged the use of “consecutive” in the sentencing orders.

[4] But the fact that an HVSO enhancement cannot be consecutive to the sentence for the underlying offense doesn't mean it must be concurrent, as Mauricio suggests. The HVSO statute makes clear that the term of years for the HVSO finding is “to be added to” the term of years for the underlying offense, resulting in a single, enhanced sentence for the underlying offense. (An HVSO enhancement can be suspended in part or in full, as the trial court did here. See McDonald v. State, 179 N.E.3d 463, 464 (Ind. 2022).) The post-conviction court did not err by denying this part of Mauricio's petitions.

[5] For these reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case to the post-conviction court with instructions to order the amendment of the original sentencing judgments to reflect enhanced ten-year sentences (with nine years suspended) for the OWI convictions rather than separate, “consecutive” sentences of two years for the OWI convictions and eight years for the HVSO findings.

[6] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Vaidik, Judge.

Altice, J., and Foley, J., concur.