Roten v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed the denial of Roten’s third motion to correct his habitual-offender sentence as illegal. It held that the predicate offenses did not improperly overlap, that an offense committed while serving a sentence can qualify as a predicate when the defendant had previously been sentenced and afforded an opportunity to reform in prison, and that sufficient time elapsed between Roten’s predicate offenses. The Court declined to address the newly raised Erlinger issue because it was not ripe on appeal.