Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (2026)

Habitual offenders

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 8. (a) The state may seek to have a person sentenced as a habitual offender for a felony by alleging, on one (1) or more pages separate from the rest of the charging instrument, that the person has accumulated the required number of prior unrelated felony convictions in accordance with this section.

(b) A person convicted of murder or of a Level 1 through Level 4 felony is a habitual offender if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that:

(1) the person has been convicted of two (2) prior unrelated felonies; and

(2) at least one (1) of the prior unrelated felonies is not a Level 6 felony or a Class D felony.

(1) the person has been convicted of two (2) prior unrelated felonies;

(2) at least one (1) of the prior unrelated felonies is not a Level 6 felony or a Class D felony; and

(3) if the person is alleged to have committed a prior unrelated:

(A) Level 5 felony;

(B) Level 6 felony;

(D) Class D felony;

not more than ten (10) years have elapsed between the time the person was released from imprisonment, probation, or parole (whichever is latest) for at least one (1) of the two (2) prior unrelated felonies and the time the person committed the current offense.

(d) A person convicted of a felony offense is a habitual offender if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that:

(1) the person has been convicted of three (3) prior unrelated felonies; and

(2) if the person is alleged to have committed a prior unrelated:

(A) Level 5 felony;

(B) Level 6 felony;

(D) Class D felony;

not more than ten (10) years have elapsed between the time the person was released from imprisonment, probation, or parole (whichever is latest) for at least one (1) of the three (3) prior unrelated felonies and the time the person committed the current offense.

(e) The state may not seek to have a person sentenced as a habitual offender for a felony offense under this section if the current offense is a misdemeanor that is enhanced to a felony in the same proceeding as the habitual offender proceeding solely because the person had a prior unrelated conviction. However, a prior unrelated felony conviction may be used to support a habitual offender determination even if the sentence for the prior unrelated offense was enhanced for any reason, including an enhancement because the person had been convicted of another offense.

(f) A person has accumulated two (2) or three (3) prior unrelated felony convictions for purposes of this section only if:

(1) the second prior unrelated felony conviction was committed after commission of and sentencing for the first prior unrelated felony conviction;

(2) the offense for which the state seeks to have the person sentenced as a habitual offender was committed after commission of and sentencing for the second prior unrelated felony conviction; and

(3) for a conviction requiring proof of three (3) prior unrelated felonies, the third prior unrelated felony conviction was committed after commission of and sentencing for the second prior unrelated felony conviction.

(g) A conviction does not count for purposes of this section as a prior unrelated felony conviction if:

(1) the conviction has been set aside; or

(2) the conviction is one for which the person has been pardoned.

(h) If the person was convicted of the felony in a jury trial, the jury shall reconvene for the sentencing hearing. If the trial was to the court or the judgment was entered on a guilty plea, the court alone shall conduct the sentencing hearing under IC 35-38-1-3. The role of the jury is to determine whether the defendant has been convicted of the unrelated felonies. The state or defendant may not conduct any additional interrogation or questioning of the jury during the habitual offender part of the trial.

(i) The court shall sentence a person found to be a habitual offender to an additional fixed term that is between:

(1) eight (8) years and twenty (20) years, for a person convicted of murder or a Level 1 through Level 4 felony; or

(2) three (3) years and six (6) years, for a person convicted of a Level 5 or Level 6 felony.

An additional term imposed under this subsection is nonsuspendible.

(j) Habitual offender is a status that results in an enhanced sentence. It is not a separate crime and does not result in a consecutive sentence. The court shall attach the habitual offender enhancement to the felony conviction with the highest sentence imposed and specify which felony count is being enhanced. If the felony enhanced by the habitual offender determination is set aside or vacated, the court shall resentence the person and apply the habitual offender enhancement to the felony conviction with the next highest sentence in the underlying cause, if any.

(k) A prior unrelated felony conviction may not be collaterally attacked during a habitual offender proceeding unless the conviction is constitutionally invalid.

(l) The procedural safeguards that apply to other criminal charges, including:

(1) the requirement that the charge be filed by information or indictment; and

(2) the right to an initial hearing;

also apply to a habitual offender allegation.

As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.8. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.121; Acts 1980, P.L.210, SEC.1; P.L.335-1983, SEC.1; P.L.328-1985, SEC.2; P.L.1-1990, SEC.353; P.L.164-1993, SEC.13; P.L.140-1994, SEC.14; P.L.305-1995, SEC.1; P.L.166-2001, SEC.3; P.L.291-2001, SEC.226; P.L.71-2005, SEC.11; P.L.158-2013, SEC.661; P.L.168-2014, SEC.118; P.L.238-2015, SEC.17; P.L.12-2017, SEC.1; P.L.37-2023, SEC.2.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1,148 cases (25 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Darryl Calvin v. State of Indiana, 87 N.E.3d 474 (Ind. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Darryl Calvin v. State of Indiana, 87 N.E.3d 474 (Ind. 2017). · cites it 28× “Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (j) (2017). Here, Calvin’s Level 4 felony burglary conviction was enhanced under Indiana Code subsection 35-50-2-8(b): (b) A person convicted of murder or of a Level 1 through Level 4 felony is a habitual offender if the state proves beyond a reasonable…”

Best v. State, 566 N.E.2d 1027 (Ind. 1991). · cites it 30× “Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (West 1986). The court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively for a total of twenty-seven years imprisonment.”

Anthony H. Dye v. State of Indiana, 972 N.E.2d 853 (Ind. 2012). · cites it 26× “Acts 1074 , 1077 (codified as amended at Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (b)(1) (2008)); Freeman v.”

Shepherd v. State, 924 N.E.2d 1274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 18× “Shepherd was found to be a habit, ual offender under Ind.Code § 35-50-2-8 on the basis of two prior unrelated felony convictions.”

Baker v. State, 425 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. 1981). · cites it 29× “His direct appeal raises the following issues all related to the habitual offender phase of the proceedings: 1. Whether the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to file the habitual offender count using the same two prior felonies which had been used during the habitual…”

Boggs v. State, 928 N.E.2d 855 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 10× “First, we thank counsel for the quality of the oral and written arguments, participating in post-argument discussions with the audience, and for commuting to the oral argument.”

Underhill v. State, 428 N.E.2d 759 (Ind. 1981). · cites it 20× “), and of being an habitual offender, Ind.Code § 35-50-2-8 (Burns 1979 Repl.). He was sentenced to the Indiana Department of Correction for consecutive terms of eight and thirty years.”

Johnican v. State, 804 N.E.2d 211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 16× “Conclusion In sum, we find no error in the trial court allowing the State to belatedly file its habitual offender count or ordering the sentences for Johnican's three convictions to be served consecutively.”

Turpin v. State, 435 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 1982). · cites it 24× “), and of being an habitual offender, Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (Burns 1981 Supp.).”

Minneman v. State, 441 N.E.2d 673 (Ind. 1982). · cites it 20× “1979), and of being a habitual offender, Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (Burns Repl. 1979) at the conclusion of a jury trial in Rush Circuit Court on August 12, 1980.”

Collins v. State, 415 N.E.2d 46 (Ind. 1981). · cites it 12× “), and being an habitual offender, Ind.Code § 35-50-2-8 (Burns 1979 Repl.) (amended 1980).”

Seay v. State, 698 N.E.2d 732 (Ind. 1998). · cites it 14× “Ind.Code § 35-50-2-8 (Supp.1985). 5 Such sentencing has extremely severe consequences—it can add as many as thirty (30) years to the sentence otherwise imposed.”

Show all 1,148 citing cases →

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(A) — 1 case

Gerald C. Vickers v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(a) — 66 cases

Anthony H. Dye v. State of Indiana, 984 N.E.2d 625 (Ind. 2013).

Townsend v. State, 793 N.E.2d 1092 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).

Minneman v. State, 441 N.E.2d 673 (Ind. 1982). “1979), and of being a habitual offender, Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (Burns Repl. 1979) at the conclusion of a jury trial in Rush Circuit Court on August 12, 1980.”

Gardiner v. State, 928 N.E.2d 194 (Ind. 2010).

Woodward v. State, 798 N.E.2d 260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(b) — 33 cases

Darryl Calvin v. State of Indiana, 87 N.E.3d 474 (Ind. 2017). “Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (j) (2017). Here, Calvin’s Level 4 felony burglary conviction was enhanced under Indiana Code subsection 35-50-2-8(b): (b) A person convicted of murder or of a Level 1 through Level 4 felony is a habitual offender if the state proves beyond a reasonable…”

Boggs v. State, 928 N.E.2d 855 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “First, we thank counsel for the quality of the oral and written arguments, participating in post-argument discussions with the audience, and for commuting to the oral argument.”

Johnican v. State, 804 N.E.2d 211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “Conclusion In sum, we find no error in the trial court allowing the State to belatedly file its habitual offender count or ordering the sentences for Johnican's three convictions to be served consecutively.”

Shepherd v. State, 924 N.E.2d 1274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Shepherd was found to be a habit, ual offender under Ind.Code § 35-50-2-8 on the basis of two prior unrelated felony convictions.”

Darryl L. Calvin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 80 N.E.3d 226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(b)(1) — 3 cases

Olatunji v. State, 788 N.E.2d 1268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).

Puckett v. State, 843 N.E.2d 959 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

State v. Jones, 819 N.E.2d 877 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(b)(2) — 3 cases

John Jay Lacey v. State of Indiana, 124 N.E.3d 1253 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

Matthew L. Johnson v. State of Indiana, 87 N.E.3d 471 (Ind. 2017).

Puckett v. State, 843 N.E.2d 959 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(b)(3) — 5 cases

Anthony H. Dye v. State of Indiana, 972 N.E.2d 853 (Ind. 2012). “Acts 1074 , 1077 (codified as amended at Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (b)(1) (2008)); Freeman v.”

Raymond Ryan Marling v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

Brandon J. Lunkin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

Andrew Humphreys v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(b)(3)(A) — 1 case

Christopher McCaster v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(b)(3)(C) — 4 cases

Peoples v. State, 929 N.E.2d 750 (Ind. 2010).

John F. Harris, III v. State of Indiana, 981 N.E.2d 610 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

Willie D. Williams v. State of Indiana, 42 N.E.3d 107 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

Raymond Ryan Marling v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(b)(3)(c) — 1 case

Shepherd v. State, 924 N.E.2d 1274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Shepherd was found to be a habit, ual offender under Ind.Code § 35-50-2-8 on the basis of two prior unrelated felony convictions.”

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(b)(3)(iii) — 1 case

Kenneth E. Eltzroth v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(b)(8) — 4 cases

Graham v. State, 941 N.E.2d 1091 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

Shepherd v. State, 924 N.E.2d 1274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Shepherd was found to be a habit, ual offender under Ind.Code § 35-50-2-8 on the basis of two prior unrelated felony convictions.”

Seeley v. State, 936 N.E.2d 863 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(b)(8)(A) — 1 case

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(b)(8)(C) — 2 cases

Shepherd v. State, 924 N.E.2d 1274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Shepherd was found to be a habit, ual offender under Ind.Code § 35-50-2-8 on the basis of two prior unrelated felony convictions.”

Peoples v. State, 929 N.E.2d 750 (Ind. 2010).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(b)(l) — 2 cases

Anthony H. Dye v. State of Indiana, 972 N.E.2d 853 (Ind. 2012). “Acts 1074 , 1077 (codified as amended at Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (b)(1) (2008)); Freeman v.”

State v. Anders, 2009 SD 15 (S.D. 2009).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(c) — 31 cases

Woods v. State, 939 N.E.2d 676 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

Charles A. Walker v. State of Indiana, 988 N.E.2d 1181 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

Marsillett v. State, 495 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. 1986).

Anthony H. Dye v. State of Indiana, 972 N.E.2d 853 (Ind. 2012). “Acts 1074 , 1077 (codified as amended at Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (b)(1) (2008)); Freeman v.”

Carter v. State, 505 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. 1987).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(c)(1) — 1 case

Woodward v. State, 798 N.E.2d 260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(d) — 35 cases

Matthew L. Johnson v. State of Indiana, 87 N.E.3d 471 (Ind. 2017).

Baker v. State, 425 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. 1981). “His direct appeal raises the following issues all related to the habitual offender phase of the proceedings: 1. Whether the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to file the habitual offender count using the same two prior felonies which had been used during the habitual…”

Owens v. State, 427 N.E.2d 880 (Ind. 1981).

Griffin v. State, 415 N.E.2d 60 (Ind. 1981).

Greer v. State, 680 N.E.2d 526 (Ind. 1997).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(d)(1) — 1 case

Gardiner v. State, 928 N.E.2d 194 (Ind. 2010).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(d)(3) — 3 cases

Shepherd v. State, 924 N.E.2d 1274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Shepherd was found to be a habit, ual offender under Ind.Code § 35-50-2-8 on the basis of two prior unrelated felony convictions.”

Brandon Robey v. State of Indiana, 7 N.E.3d 371 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

Anthony Steven Williams, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(d)(3)(A) — 1 case

Peoples v. State, 912 N.E.2d 398 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(d)(3)(C) — 1 case

Ronald Williams v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(d)(8) — 2 cases

Williams v. State, 834 N.E.2d 225 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).

Weiss v. State, 903 N.E.2d 557 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(d)(8)(A) — 1 case

Weiss v. State, 903 N.E.2d 557 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(d)(8)(C) — 2 cases

Shepherd v. State, 924 N.E.2d 1274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Shepherd was found to be a habit, ual offender under Ind.Code § 35-50-2-8 on the basis of two prior unrelated felony convictions.”

Peoples v. State, 929 N.E.2d 750 (Ind. 2010).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(e) — 43 cases

Hendrix v. State, 759 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind. 2001).

Spurlock v. State, 675 N.E.2d 312 (Ind. 1997).

Cash v. State, 557 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. 1990).

Baxter v. State, 522 N.E.2d 362 (Ind. 1988).

Nelson v. State, 792 N.E.2d 588 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(f) — 8 cases

Edwards v. State, 822 N.E.2d 1106 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).

Davis v. State, 935 N.E.2d 1215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

Jones v. State, 425 N.E.2d 82 (Ind. 1981).

Steven Magness v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

Jeffrey K. Mitchell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(g) — 9 cases

Dexter v. State, 959 N.E.2d 235 (Ind. 2012).

Trusley v. State, 818 N.E.2d 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

Woods v. State, 939 N.E.2d 676 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

White v. State, 963 N.E.2d 511 (Ind. 2012).

White v. State, 944 N.E.2d 532 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(h) — 51 cases

Tyler v. State, 903 N.E.2d 463 (Ind. 2009).

Hollin v. State, 877 N.E.2d 462 (Ind. 2007).

Montgomery v. State, 878 N.E.2d 262 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

Chappell v. State, 966 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(i) — 7 cases

Christopher Jerome Harris v. State of Indiana (Ind. 2023).

Christopher Reid v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).

Dustin Scott Anthony Devers v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).

Anthony Steven Williams, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

Terry Tripp v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(i)(1) — 16 cases

Victor Karp v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

Billy T. Reames v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).

Charles N. Peete v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).

Eric D. Huffman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).

Richard J. Campos v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(i)(2) — 10 cases

Brent D. Mullis v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2025).

Gerald Edward Johnson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

Kurt Muzquiz v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).

Vincent P. Wells, Sr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).

Thomas N. Hite III v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(i)(l) — 1 case

Frantz Jerry Sainvil v. State of Indiana, 51 N.E.3d 337 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(j) — 18 cases

Keith v. State, 127 N.E.3d 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

Marquell M. Jackson v. State of Indiana, 105 N.E.3d 1081 (Ind. 2018).

Brian Kinman v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).

Jackie Butler v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

Anthony Steven Williams, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(k) — 1 case

Christopher Jerome Harris v. State of Indiana (Ind. 2023).

— Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(l) — 1 case

Christopher Jerome Harris v. State of Indiana (Ind. 2023).

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.