of indictments, the Mississippi Supreme Court has observed that amending the date of the alleged offense is a change of form only where time is not an essential element or factor in the indictment.” Givens [v. State], 730 So.2d [81,] 87 (¶ 19) [(Miss.Ct.App.1998) ] (citation omitted). Id. at (¶ 33). The amendment to Peterson’s indictment did not alter Peterson’s defense in any way and was, therefore, proper. ¶ 42. Peterson further claims that the State did not prove the length of time Peterson served on his prior offenses. However, section 99-19-81 does not require that Peterson actually serve more than one year; instead, it merely requires that Peterson received a sentence for one year or more for two separate convictions. See Hewlett v. State, 607 So.2d 1097, 1105 (Miss.1992) (<HOLDING>) Accordingly, this issue has no merit. ¶ 43.
holding that the fact that there was no actual incarceration does not affect the sufficiency of the sentences as evidence of habitualoffender status holding that appellate courts determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction based on a review of all of the evidence admitted at trial holding that on a review of the sufficiency of the evidence the court determines whether any rational trier of fact could have found all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt holding that summary judgment is appropriate when no issue of material fact exists and the court is reviewing administrative record for sufficiency of evidence holding that sufficiency of the evidence review should be independent of the jurys determination that evidence on another count was insufficient