designate his four previous convictions. The Wilson court rejected the argument, stating that “[a]ny defect in this general allegation could have been reached by a motion for a bill of particulars.” Wilson, 251 Ark. at 903, 475 S.W.2d at 544. “The information was sufficient to put the appellant on notice that the charges included the habitual-criminal act and any lack of specificity of the allegation was waived by this appearance and voluntary plea.” Id., 475 S.W.2d at 545. Likewise, there was no error in allowing the amendment because it was filed the morning of trial. The amendment to the felony information was filed prior to the case being submitted to the jury, which under similar circumstances has been held to be timely. Traylor v. State, 304 Ark. 174, 801 S.W.2d 267 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Glaze’s reliance upon Sherman v. State, 30
holding that defendants habitual traffic violator conviction could also serve as a predicate felony conviction under the general habitual offender statute holding that an amendment to a felony information on the day of trial charging the defendant as a habitual criminal was not error holding that constitutional protections against double jeopardy apply to a defendant prosecuted as an habitual criminal holding that under habitual felony offender statute a sentence includes the sanction of probation holding that under the 1991 version of the habitual offender statute defendant could not receive habitual offender sentence for life felony