Najam, J.
Alonzo R. Weekly appeals his convictions and sentence following a jury trial for operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a previous conviction, as a Level 6 felony, and a habitual vehicular substance offender (“HVSO”) enhancement.
He presents two issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence the result of a chemical breath test and the testimony of two officers.
2. Whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
….
At 12:41 a.m. on March 11, 2017, Officer Kevin Corona and Corporal Lee Brooks with the Elkhart Police Department observed Weekly driving a motorized scooter through an intersection “at what appeared to be a high rate of speed.” The officers, who were in a marked police vehicle, began to follow Weekly, and they witnessed Weekly fail to stop at two stop signs. Accordingly, the officers initiated a traffic stop.
… Officer Corona then asked Weekly to submit to a certified chemical breath test at the police station. Weekly agreed to take the test. … The results of the breath test showed that Weekly had an alcohol concentration of 0.207 gram of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
The State charged Weekly with one count of operating a vehicle while intoxicated in a manner that endangers a person, as a Class A misdemeanor (Count I), and one count of operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent to at least 0.15 gram of alcohol per 210 liters of breath, as a Class A misdemeanor (Count II). The State later added one count of operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a previous conviction, as a Level 6 felony, and alleged that Weekly was an HVSO. …
The trial court held a bifurcated jury trial on October 23, 2017. …
At the conclusion of the first phase of his trial, the jury found Weekly guilty of Counts I and II. In phase two of the trial, Weekly pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a previous conviction, as a Level 6 felony, and he admitted to being an HVSO.
The trial court merged the guilty verdicts for Counts I and II and entered judgment of conviction on the Level 6 felony and the HVSO enhancement. The trial court sentenced Weekly to two years with the Department of Correction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a previous conviction, as a Level 6 felony. And, for the HVSO enhancement, the trial court imposed “an additional three (3) years at the Indiana Department of Correction, consecutive to the sentence” for the Level 6 felony. This appeal ensued.
Weekly first contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence the results of the chemical breath test and the officers’ testimony, which included their observations of Weekly following the traffic stop and the results of the field sobriety tests.
….
… Weekly’s argument on appeal is simply a request for this court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted into evidence the results of the breath test that followed the traffic stop. And the trial court did not commit any error, let alone fundamental error, when it admitted the testimony of the two officers. Accordingly, we affirm Weekly’s convictions.
….
However, we also address the State’s contention that the trial court erred when it ordered the HVSO portion of Weekly’s sentence to be consecutive to the sentence for the felony conviction. The State contends that “the habitual portion should be an enhancement of the sentence for the Level 6 felony” pursuant to Indiana Code Section 9-30-15.5-2. We agree.
Indiana Code Section 9-30-15.5-2 provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he court shall sentence a person found to be a habitual vehicular substance offender to an additional fixed term of at least one (1) year but not more than eight (8) years of imprisonment, to be added to the term of imprisonment imposed under IC 35-50-2 or IC 35-50-3.” I.C. § 9-30-15.5-2(d) (emphasis added).
We hold that the “to be added” language in the HVSO statute is equivalent to the “attach” language in Indiana’s habitual offender statute, which provides, in relevant part:
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.
I.C. 35-50-2-8(j) (emphasis added).
And it is well-settled that “‘[a] habitual offender finding does not constitute a separate crime nor result in a separate sentence, but rather results in a sentence enhancement imposed upon the conviction of a subsequent felony.’” Kilgore v. State, 922 N.E.2d 114, 120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Greer v. State, 680 N.E.2d 526, 527 (Ind. 1997)).
Accordingly, we hold that an HVSO finding does not constitute a separate crime nor result in a separate sentence but is an enhancement to an underlying felony conviction. The trial court erred when it ordered the HVSO sentence to run as a separate, consecutive sentence. We reverse that portion of the sentencing order and remand to the trial court with instructions to resentence Weekly in accordance with this opinion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.