until almost one month later. He again expressly stated that he had no objection to the State’s motion to amend. At his sentencing hearing, he declined all opportunities to present a defense to the amendment. Furthermore, he did not request a continuance to prepare such a defense. See Nathan v. State, 552 So.2d 99, 107 (Miss.1989) (stating the supreme court “has held that where a defendant does not ask for a continuance when an indictment is amended[,] he cannot later object that he was surprised and prejudiced in this defense.”) (citations omitted). ¶ 14. Instead of preparing a defense or requesting a continuance, Whitfield admitted both of his prior felony convictions and agreed to be sentenced as a habitual offender. See Evans v. State, 988 So.2d 404, 406 (¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (<HOLDING>). We note that, despite his current attack on
holding that a defendants guilty plea was unconditional where the guilty plea was not in writing and the government did not consent to it being conditional holding that in the context of a guilty plea the defendants own admission was sufficient evidence to meet the states burden of proving habitualoffender status holding that the defendant has the burden of proving a fair and just reason for withdrawal of a guilty plea holding that the defendants guilty plea was valid where the district court carefully questioned the defendant about whether he understood the consequences of his guilty plea holding that entering a guilty plea is an admission of guilt and a waiver of the right to jury trial