Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-10 (2025)
Repealed
✓ 2025 Indiana Code: the 2026 session is not included
As added by P.L.335-1983, SEC.2. Amended by P.L.327-1985, SEC.5; P.L.98-1988, SEC.11; P.L.1-1990, SEC.355; P.L.96-1996, SEC.8; P.L.97-1996, SEC.5; P.L.2-1997, SEC.77; P.L.291-2001, SEC.227; P.L.71-2005, SEC.12; P.L.213-2005, SEC.5; P.L.1-2006, SEC.551. Repealed by P.L.158-2013, SEC.664.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 130
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case: Anthony H. Dye v. State of Indiana, 972 N.E.2d 853 (Ind. 2012).
Anthony H. Dye v. State of Indiana, 972 N.E.2d 853 (Ind. 2012). “Acts 1725 , 1731 (codi- fied as amended at Ind. Code § 35-50-2-10 (2008)); Devore v.”
Hendrix v. State, 759 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind. 2001). “Discussion I Defendant contends that she should have been charged as a "habitual substance offender" according to Indiana Code § 85-50-2-8 rather than the harsher habitual offender statute, Indiana Code § 35-50-2-10. Defendant was charged as a habitual offender under Indiana's…”
Freeman v. State, 658 N.E.2d 68 (Ind. 1995). “[2] Third, the State asserted Freeman was a habitual substance offender in violation of Ind.Code Ann. § 35-50-2-10 (West Supp.1994).”
Butler v. State, 658 N.E.2d 72 (Ind. 1995). “[6] Ind.Code Ann. § 35-50-2-10 (West 1986). [7] Ind.”
Bauer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 744 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “The Devaney court held that an enhanced sentence imposed under Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-10 may not be suspended, reversed the trial court, and remanded for the imposition of a fully executed four-and-a-half-year sentence.”
Roberts v. State, 725 N.E.2d 441 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “Ind.Code Ann. § 35-50-2-10 (West 1998). 5 .”
Lindsey v. State, 877 N.E.2d 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Ind.Code Ann. § 35-50-2-10 (West, PREMISE through 2007 Public Laws approved and effective through April 8, 2007).”
Johnathon R. Aslinger v. State of Indiana, 2 N.E.3d 84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “” I.C. § 35-50-2-10(b). 14 An HSO enhancement adds between three and eight years to a substance offense sentence.”
David A. Mathews v. State of Indiana, 64 N.E.3d 1250 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “In light of his prior record, including the 2003 Case, the State sought habitual substance offender status for Mathews under now-repealed Indiana Code § 35-50-2-10(b), relying in part on the conviction in the 2003 Case as a predicate for the habitual substance offender finding.”
Lehman v. State, 926 N.E.2d 35 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 35-48-4-2; and his adjudication as an habitual substance offender, I.C. § 35-50-2-10. We affirm. ISSUE Lehman raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the trial court properly admitted the deceased confidential informant's statement at trial.”
Fields v. State, 888 N.E.2d 304 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Ind.Code § 35-50-2-10. The level of Fields’ prior convictions is an essential element of the habitual substance offender charge.”
Woodward v. State, 798 N.E.2d 260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 35-50-2-8 (the General Habitual Offender Statute) and I.C. § 35-50-2-10 (the Habitual Substance Offender Statute).”
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-10(1996): 1 case
Settle v. State, 709 N.E.2d 34 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-10(2): 1 case
Roberts v. State, 725 N.E.2d 441 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “Ind.Code Ann. § 35-50-2-10 (West 1998). 5 .”
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-10(B): 1 case
David E. Arnold v. State of Indiana, No. 48A05-1112-CR-668 (Ind. Ct. App. July 31, 2012).
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-10(a): 5 cases
Freeman v. State, 658 N.E.2d 68 (Ind. 1995). “[2] Third, the State asserted Freeman was a habitual substance offender in violation of Ind.Code Ann. § 35-50-2-10 (West Supp.1994).”
Murray v. State, 798 N.E.2d 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Downey, 746 N.E.2d 374 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
Freeman v. State, 647 N.E.2d 1134 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).
Freeman v. State, 647 N.E.2d 1134 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-10(a)(1): 1 case
Hendrix v. State, 759 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind. 2001). “Discussion I Defendant contends that she should have been charged as a "habitual substance offender" according to Indiana Code § 85-50-2-8 rather than the harsher habitual offender statute, Indiana Code § 35-50-2-10. Defendant was charged as a habitual offender under Indiana's…”
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-10(a)(2): 8 cases
Anthony H. Dye v. State of Indiana, 972 N.E.2d 853 (Ind. 2012). “Acts 1725 , 1731 (codi- fied as amended at Ind. Code § 35-50-2-10 (2008)); Devore v.”
Butler v. State, 658 N.E.2d 72 (Ind. 1995). “[6] Ind.Code Ann. § 35-50-2-10 (West 1986). [7] Ind.”
Lindsey v. State, 877 N.E.2d 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Ind.Code Ann. § 35-50-2-10 (West, PREMISE through 2007 Public Laws approved and effective through April 8, 2007).”
Fields v. State, 888 N.E.2d 304 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Ind.Code § 35-50-2-10. The level of Fields’ prior convictions is an essential element of the habitual substance offender charge.”
Bauer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 744 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “The Devaney court held that an enhanced sentence imposed under Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-10 may not be suspended, reversed the trial court, and remanded for the imposition of a fully executed four-and-a-half-year sentence.”
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-10(b): 14 cases
David A. Mathews v. State of Indiana, 64 N.E.3d 1250 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “In light of his prior record, including the 2003 Case, the State sought habitual substance offender status for Mathews under now-repealed Indiana Code § 35-50-2-10(b), relying in part on the conviction in the 2003 Case as a predicate for the habitual substance offender finding.”
Johnathon R. Aslinger v. State of Indiana, 2 N.E.3d 84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “” I.C. § 35-50-2-10(b). 14 An HSO enhancement adds between three and eight years to a substance offense sentence.”
Bauer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 744 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “The Devaney court held that an enhanced sentence imposed under Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-10 may not be suspended, reversed the trial court, and remanded for the imposition of a fully executed four-and-a-half-year sentence.”
Butler v. State, 658 N.E.2d 72 (Ind. 1995). “[6] Ind.Code Ann. § 35-50-2-10 (West 1986). [7] Ind.”
Reffett v. State, 844 N.E.2d 1072 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-10(c): 1 case
Woodward v. State, 798 N.E.2d 260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 35-50-2-8 (the General Habitual Offender Statute) and I.C. § 35-50-2-10 (the Habitual Substance Offender Statute).”
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-10(e): 2 cases
Lindsey v. State, 877 N.E.2d 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Ind.Code Ann. § 35-50-2-10 (West, PREMISE through 2007 Public Laws approved and effective through April 8, 2007).”
State v. Downey, 746 N.E.2d 374 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-10(f): 16 cases
Johnathon R. Aslinger v. State of Indiana, 2 N.E.3d 84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “” I.C. § 35-50-2-10(b). 14 An HSO enhancement adds between three and eight years to a substance offense sentence.”
Hendrix v. State, 759 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind. 2001). “Discussion I Defendant contends that she should have been charged as a "habitual substance offender" according to Indiana Code § 85-50-2-8 rather than the harsher habitual offender statute, Indiana Code § 35-50-2-10. Defendant was charged as a habitual offender under Indiana's…”
Bauer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 744 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “The Devaney court held that an enhanced sentence imposed under Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-10 may not be suspended, reversed the trial court, and remanded for the imposition of a fully executed four-and-a-half-year sentence.”
Lindsey v. State, 877 N.E.2d 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Ind.Code Ann. § 35-50-2-10 (West, PREMISE through 2007 Public Laws approved and effective through April 8, 2007).”
Young v. State, 901 N.E.2d 624 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-10(f)(1): 3 cases
Bauer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 744 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “The Devaney court held that an enhanced sentence imposed under Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-10 may not be suspended, reversed the trial court, and remanded for the imposition of a fully executed four-and-a-half-year sentence.”
Theodore T. Schwartz v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), No. 01A02-1507-PC-872 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2016).
Vincent W. Hren v. State of Indiana, No. 32A01-1310-CR-436 (Ind. Ct. App. May 28, 2014).
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-10(g): 1 case
Lindsey v. State, 877 N.E.2d 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Ind.Code Ann. § 35-50-2-10 (West, PREMISE through 2007 Public Laws approved and effective through April 8, 2007).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.