Petro v. State

PIVARNIK, Justice.

In this direct appeal, Defendant-Appellant Danny Lee Petro claims solely that the trial court erred in denying his Motion to Dismiss Amended Count II, and subsequently in sentencing him to thirty-five years imprisonment following a retrial of the habitual offender charge. He claims the sentence constitutes punishment for his status as an habitual offender, which violates the prohibition of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

This case was first tried on November 21, 1981. The jury found Defendant guilty of Robbery, a class C felony, on Count I. The same…