In contrast to the above cases, Thomas was not charged under two habitual offender statutes. Rather, he was charged with being an habitual offender under Ind. Code 35-50-2-8 and with committing the crime of carrying a handgun without a license as a Class C felony. The fact that the handgun charge was elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony does not render application of the habitual offender statute in any way duplicative. Hence, the State was not barred from using Thomas’s 1981 robbery conviction as an underlying felony to support the habitual offender charge. Because Thomas’s convictions were not already enhanced by a specific habitual offender scheme, use of the general habitual offender statute does not result in double enhancement. See Haymaker v. State, 667 N.E.2d 1113 (Ind.1996) (<HOLDING>); see also Williams v. State, 676 N.E.2d 1074
holding that defendants habitual traffic violator conviction could also serve as a predicate felony conviction under the general habitual offender statute holding that to constitute a prior conviction for purposes of the habitual felony offender act the defendant must have been adjudicated guilty before the present crime was committed holding that under habitual felony offender statute a sentence includes the sanction of probation holding that defendants auto theft conviction could serve to support his conviction for auto theft as a class c felony and as a prior unrelated felony conviction under the habitual offender statute holding that under the 1991 version of the habitual offender statute defendant could not receive habitual offender sentence for life felony