Najam, J.
….
We … hold that the July 1, 2014, revisions to the habitual offender statute, Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-8, do not apply retroactively to offenses committed prior to the effective date of our new criminal code.
….
When the legislature enacted the new criminal code, it did so alongside a general savings statute. That statute provides that the revisions to the criminal code do not affect “(1) penalties incurred; (2) crimes committed; or (3) proceedings begun” before those revisions took effect. I.C. § 1-1-5.5-21(a) (2014). Further, the savings clause specifies that “[t]he general assembly does not intend the doctrine of amelioration to apply.” [Footnote omitted.] I.C. § 1-1-5.5-21(b) (2014).
….
Therefore, although Grundy was not adjudicated a habitual offender until August 26, 2014, his status as such is inextricably attached to the date he committed the underlying crime, which was on December 28, 2013, well before the effective date of the revisions to our criminal code. And, again, “the law in effect when the crime was committed controls sentencing.” Riffe v. State, 675 N.E.2d 710, 712 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. The legislature acknowledged as much when it enacted a general savings clause that states that the revisions to the criminal code do not apply to crimes committed before the effective date of those revisions, through the doctrine of amelioration or otherwise. [Citation omitted.] We, therefore, hold that the trial court did not err when it enhanced Grundy’s sentence pursuant to the habitual offender statute in effect prior to July 1, 2014.
….
Baker, J., and Friedlander, J., concur.
….
We … hold that the July 1, 2014, revisions to the habitual offender statute, Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-8, do not apply retroactively to offenses committed prior to the effective date of our new criminal code.
….
When the legislature enacted the new criminal code, it did so alongside a general savings statute. That statute provides that the revisions to the criminal code do not affect “(1) penalties incurred; (2) crimes committed; or (3) proceedings begun” before those revisions took effect. I.C. § 1-1-5.5-21(a) (2014). Further, the savings clause specifies that “[t]he general assembly does not intend the doctrine of amelioration to apply.” [Footnote omitted.] I.C. § 1-1-5.5-21(b) (2014).
….
Therefore, although Grundy was not adjudicated a habitual offender until August 26, 2014, his status as such is inextricably attached to the date he committed the underlying crime, which was on December 28, 2013, well before the effective date of the revisions to our criminal code. And, again, “the law in effect when the crime was committed controls sentencing.” Riffe v. State, 675 N.E.2d 710, 712 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. The legislature acknowledged as much when it enacted a general savings clause that states that the revisions to the criminal code do not apply to crimes committed before the effective date of those revisions, through the doctrine of amelioration or otherwise. [Citation omitted.] We, therefore, hold that the trial court did not err when it enhanced Grundy’s sentence pursuant to the habitual offender statute in effect prior to July 1, 2014.
….
Baker, J., and Friedlander, J., concur.