is unclear from the record why neither the State, nor defense counsel, nor the district court observed that these exhibits contained a different name, date of birth, and social security number from that of Defendant. Curiously, the State verbally noted the matching names, dates of birth, and social security numbers when it introduced the exhibits relating to Defendant’s other prior convictions, but failed to do so with respect to the exhibits from matter CR-89-0157. {17} Needless to say, the State did not meet its burden of making a prima facie case showing a valid prior felony conviction with regard to matter CR-89-0157. Therefore, substantial evidence did not support the district court’s enhancement of Defendant’s sentence. See Woods v. State, 654 N.E.2d 1153, 1157 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (<HOLDING>). We now turn to Defendant’s claim that his
holding that although there was evidence of discrimination based on race there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of constructive discharge holding evidence was legally insufficient to support conviction for violation of sex offender registration requirement holding that although there was evidence of discrimination by the employer based on race there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the employer had constructively discharged the plaintiff holding evidence insufficient to support conviction of attempted possession of a prohibited weapon holding that evidence was insufficient to support defendants habitual offender enhancement where state introduced documents evidencing the conviction of another defendant of different race and age